Warp wrote:
> Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> The Matrix is not a film that can be rationally dissected IMO; it's all 
>> utter nonsense from beginning to end
> 
>   I disagree. Most of the things have plausible explanations. A few of
> them might be far-fetched retconning, but they are still plausible.

Don't get me wrong; I rather like the Matrix, and I even enjoyed the 
almost universally-reviled sequels. Especially the second one.

My main problem really is that the 'big' explanations are hogwash. 
Mainly, the machines' dependence on humans - power is a ridiculous 
excuse, and even if you accept that there's still no need for the Matrix 
whatsoever. And why would the machines have been dependent on solar 
power? Just a slim excuse to provide a wrecked world as the future setting.

But once you get past those, I guess the rest of it does make a kind of 
sense. Although I dislike cliched plot devices like restricted 
exit/entry points and dying IRL if you get capped in the Matrix. And I 
still think the agents would be more deadly.  They can dodge bullets 
most of the time, but fists, only sometimes. This means most of the 
time, their reflexes are the same as humans, but only sometimes speed up 
to what they would actually be. Why? What's the point? Grrr. :-)

Post a reply to this message