Matrix Revolutions

Emperor Harkonnen · November 7, 2003

saw the movie on wednesday. it was worse than the other two I think.

but the who is that Smith guy, is that Sam Neil from Jurassic Park and Red October?

Khan · November 8, 2003

No he is the elven guy from LotR.

Tio_Holtzmann · November 8, 2003

Hugo Weaving. Aussie. In LotR. BRILLIANT. Cept whenver he's an elf, i keep expecting him to turn round and go "MR ANDERSON"

thomas · November 8, 2003

here's a pic of kristianna loken, shows her bum, not nude though so it's safe for the little ones ;)

Emperor Harkonnen · November 8, 2003

No he is the elven guy from LotR.

thanks for telling me! I knew there was something familiar about him

Dude_Doc · November 8, 2003

Hey, I like Sam Niel, he's a good actor...

Emperor Harkonnen · November 8, 2003

yes he is,. but smith is not sam neil

Andoreion · November 8, 2003

Its Hugo Weaving, I think.

Avrillian_Sard01 · November 9, 2003

It is, and he also plays Elrond of Rivendell (The name of the elf he plays in LOTR, BTW...)

As for Kristianna Loken, I'd rather have my copy of FHM (For Him Magazine) anytime... ;) W/ her in it, of course...

Caid Ivik · November 9, 2003

Now let push Ms Loken off and let's go to topic: I'VE JUST NOW RETURNED FROM CINEMA!

[hide]Movie itself was too long for me, when I just want to see what's all about. First part of Matrix was some kind of eastern crap, showing Neo as predestined to destroy the Matrix. Second one showed this crap is really a crap and by believing in it, mostly by hate against the machines, people simply caused a war. In third part, Neo is going to repair fault of mankind and sacrifice himself, to say it evangelically, for our sins.

So first he is bound in a middle-world, indecision of both humans and machines, if it has some reason to face the threat. But the war already rages, with cold supremacy on one side and pathetic heroism on the other one. Neo finds that demonical Smith can control both worlds, artificial as well as real. Like Muad'Dib, his fight erases a part of root, but in loss of his eyes. He flies to city of machines, where dies Trinity. Rather disturbing character, maybe his death was ment to show Neo's will weakened.

Here, Neo becomes another Dune character - Leto the Worm - taking the responsibility of the world on his knees to fight with destruction itself. Maybe Leto isn't the best model situation because he had more power than his opponent and his death wasn't needed for final victory. Fight between Neo and Smith, inspired by zero-G anime style, is rather too much prolonged, but at the and we go to the nefesh of the movie. Smith shows his view on world, seeing its sense only in having beginning and an end. Neo knows only one - that Smith is to be his own negation. There is no other chance, than to rejoice with Smith and return the equation to balance.

And why he did that? Just from his decision. He had no idea what he can have from it, just he showed his will, pure will. Stripped from all emotions, interests and other "illusions" in Smith's eyes. By this, he defeated him. This is genial! Whole movie looked like a cheap effect action - but here, I must bow to Wachovskis' work. [/hide]

Apollyon · November 9, 2003

I enjoyed the film a great deal myself. I thought the start was slightly cheesy, but once the 'suspended belief' effect set in, I was well on the way to enjoying it. The action is incredible, the plot is all it has to be and the symbolism and philosophy is quite interesting.

gryphon · November 10, 2003

Just saw it. . two days later then planned. .

The film reminds me of Breakfast at Tiffany's .. . but then the interpretation Deep Blue Something has given to that film. . with the exception that I like Breakfast at Tiffany's

Not all was bad though. . .the Frensh dude from Reloaded and Revolutions is quite funny. :)

Anathema · November 10, 2003

Saw it yesterday. Wasn't as bad as sequels tend to be, but it wasn't that great either.

[hide]For one thing the movie is full of meaningless sub plots that don't matter one bit in the end. In the trailers we got to hear "neo is trapped in a place between this world and the machine world", wich sounded interesting enough. But half an hour after the movie starts Trinity puts a gun to the Merovingians head and forces him to bring him back. That it. Or the Bane thing: combined with the cliffhanger at the end of Reloaded and the bits you got to see in the trailers I expected that to be of major importance to the storyline but all he gets to do is fry Neos eyes (and he's not even really blind after it) and die. That it. Like those two examples, there is plenty of stuff you can forget about completely without making any difference to the big picture. You can summarise the core of the story in one sentence: Neo helps the machines kill Smith and in return they leave the humans alone.

The sequels (and especially Revolutions) are a lot different then the original. The original story happened almost completely inside the Matrix and it revolved pretty much around kick ass martial arts, dodging bullets etc, wich was cool. We still see some of that back in Reloaded, but Revolutions happens outside the matrix mostly. Plus the fight between Smith and Neo was more like some teenager anime fight then the fighting you saw in the original. Bleh.[/hide]

It was an entertaining movie though, but not as good as Reloaded and it doesn't even come near the original.

Cyborg · November 10, 2003

I saw the film last Thursday.

I must say, it's letting me down just as much as the second, if not more!

They should've stopped with the first one. That was brilliant.

But the last films are just action movies.

Very weak, I'd say.

muaddib · November 11, 2003

people who didnt like Matrix Reloaded and Matrix Revolutions are people who did now understand them. its quite a hard plot the matrix plot its like a 20 hour movie made in 6 not easy

and another thing stop saying that they should have stopped at the first Matrix the W brothers wrote this as a giat script from the very beggining the thing was they couldnt make a 6 hour movie and not as much money out off itt hehehehe that is why they divided in 3 parts Reloaded and Revolutions are no sequels its one big movie take Dune for example they made dune and the children of Dune and now they are plannig on a third one ITS ONE BIG SCRIPT PEOPLE (ohh the first one was so good) THER is NO first one its just a big movie in three parts not liking Reloaded and Revolutions its NOT liking MATRIX.

thomas · November 11, 2003

the first one was incomplete, it was onely the prelude to the second films, it's liek the hobbit to the LotRs trilogy and the matrix movies are action films, they just also happen to have a deep philosophical plot too

Caid Ivik · November 11, 2003

Muaddib is right, it's all one movie divided to three separate parts. To fit kosher length and also to take money from us three times... However, Revolutions were worth it.

Cyborg · November 11, 2003

muaddib, it's impossible to hide under a carpet that the quality of the second and third movie was lower than the first.

The first had what's interesting with the Matrix, which is you sitting in your chair trying to find out the answer for your question.

You actually more or less get the answer in the end of the first film.

That part of it ends there...

Frankly, I didn't expect more than one movie until I heard about the second one.

The second and third movies were "laundry" movies was like new movies, but had the same actors, and the same background. In these, the machine attack on the humans is introduced, and that is the interesting.

They're trying to stop it.

Alas, the film then is bound to be a film where the plot is driven forward by action instead of questions that the audience seek answer to.

That is why I say the second and third movies were much worse than the first one. Maybe that was a wrong way to put it, because all in all, they are quite absorbing action movies, but they doesn't have that "what is the matrix" feeling.

Andrew · November 11, 2003

Are any sequels/prequels better than the orginal movie? No. most of the time the original is better than sequels/prequels/remakes. So to say that the 2 new matrix movies are not good etc. is crazy. Were you expecting them to be much better than the original in every way?

(not saying this to anyone other than people disliking it. Which I may even tend to dislike it when I see it)

Cyborg · November 11, 2003

No, did I say that?

In that case, I as for your apologies.

My point was that the first movie was the best.

Of course, while they're at it, why not make comedies and other films about it? They could've made a million films as good as the second and third about the Matrix(this does not mean I think they were bad).

Only the first one was the one where you got to know the Matrix.

After that, it could've been a soap opera...

Do you get my point now?

Andrew · November 11, 2003

I wasn't referring to your post, just to people who think its not good and that it is not as good as the original(reviews etc.). My point was that rarely movies are ever as good as the original. I was not saying that the people who disliked it were wrong, but how could you expect it to be better than the original?

Some sequels are better, but I notice that most are not. (and usually do worse than first film, or maybe thats just pop or teen sequels.)

Anathema · November 11, 2003

Are any sequels/prequels better than the orginal movie?

Yes. Terminator 2 was much better then the original for one thing. And if it's so difficult to make decent sequels for something, then why bother making any at all?

I never said it was bad. Just said it wasn't ground breaking.

MuadDib: I understood the movies quite well actually. If the storyline is so huge to fit in to 3 movies then why did the battle against the sentinels last like half the movie?

Warskum · November 11, 2003

Bacause a lots off ppl watch the movie for action, if they want story they ll watch drama movies.

muaddib · November 12, 2003

the movie matrix the trilogy is NOT about the matrix the artificial world its about the war between mankind and the earth controling machines (deus ex machina how they put it in the script). at the end of the matrix neo talk to deus ex machina and he says to IT "i'm gonna show them a world without rules and boundries.... no control......." now the important part "where we go from there is a choice i leave to you". now this is not an ending to a movie its totaly bogus. the plot had to continue like revolutions said everything that has a beggining has an end the is the very core of the philosophy of this trilogy what beggins-ends in the matrix (1) there was no end it was just the beggining. I am trying to justify reloaded and revolutions to ppl that think that they(the movies) have no part in this.

and one more thing i really turn crazy when i hear sequels and prequels when it comes to the matrix i'll say it one more and then i give up ITS ONE BIG SCRIPT DIVIDED IN 3 PARTS ITS LIKE A 6 HOUR MOVIE. thank you

Mahdi · November 12, 2003

Latest news: Because of the box office drop-out, warner home video is getting ready to release Revolutions on video and DVD in early January. If the Box office drops off even mroe than it's current rate, they are goign to release it in time for Christmas, in order to milk as much cash as possible.

Sign In

Matrix Revolutions

Recommended Posts

Emperor Harkonnen

Khan

Tio_Holtzmann

thomas

Emperor Harkonnen

Dude_Doc

Emperor Harkonnen

Andoreion

Avrillian_Sard01

Caid Ivik

Apollyon

gryphon

Anathema

Cyborg

muaddib

thomas

Caid Ivik

Cyborg

Andrew

Cyborg

Andrew

Anathema

Warskum

muaddib

Mahdi

Join the conversation

Activity

Important Information