Jim Henderson wrote:

>> Neo is invincible. Smith is
>> invincible. And they're fighting... why? 
> 
> For the future of the human race; humanity's survival.  Fairly typical 
> messiah story plotline in that regard.

How would defeating Smith alter humanity's survival? How would defeating 
Neo alter humanity's survival? The implications are not clear to me.

>> So they can meet the
>> Architect...? Who does what...? Babbles some meaningless babble that
>> doens't really mean a lot...? 
> 
> The Architect's speech for me basically boiled down to "people wouldn't 
> believe in the Matrix if it was too perfect or if there wasn't an 
> appearance of choice".

Do we really need 20 minutes of babbling about this? FWIW, I found the 
Morpheus speech in the first movie to be similarly pointless. I think 
XKCD summed it up nicely:

http://www.xkcd.com/566/

Of course, if they just *told* Neo (and therefore the audience) what's 
going on, it wouldn't be such a cool movie I guess. By unplugging him 
and *then* explaining what's going on, he now has no way to go back. 
Which is kind of part of the interesting tension of the film.

>> So... uh... I've just watched several hours of film and
>> I *still* don't know anything I didn't know before. In fact, the film
>> has undone several of the things that were cool about the one before.
> 
> That was my first impression of the 2nd and 3rd; I still don't feel they 
> live up to the "promise" of the ending of #1 (and #1 is still the best in 
> my book), but rewatching them, the story made a lot more sense to me now 
> than it did when it came out.

The 3rd one is at least moderately interesting. The 2nd one just sucks 
though.

Seriously, it looks like "OMG, this film was so popular! We MUST make a 
sequal! Hey, why not make it a trilogy?"

I guess it's not that unusual for a sequal to be substantially worse 
than the original. It's disappointing though...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message