Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> http://www.wylfing.net/essays/

  I think those essays about the two latter movies of the trilogy are
really insightful.

  Some people might consider them retrofitting, but I find that doubtful.
I believe that the original script writers had to had at least some of the
same ideas as noted by those essays. For some reason (most probably very
purposefully) they chose to not to deliver the deep symbolism and allegories
readily ruminated on a silver plate to the viewers, but left much of it to
be deduced.

  I think that's one aspect of the Matrix trilogy that sets it apart from
your typical Hollywood movie: It doesn't explain everything in simple terms
for anyone to understand, but leaves much for the viewer to think about and
to try to deduce using (sometimes obscure) clues. No wonder so many people
hate it, because they don't "get it" and they are not accustomed to having
to think so much about a Hollywood blockbuster.

  (Of course part of the hatred is caused by false expectations after seeing
the first movie: Many people formed their own opinions and expectations of
how the trilogy should continue, and when it, quite naturally, didn't go as
they expected, they hated it.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message