My only real gripe with the matrix trilogy is where Neo can “see” agent smith in Bane’s body and “see” all the machines at the machine city. It didn’t need that over the top messiah thing when he was already the messiah simply because of his power within the matrix.
And if the idea is “the real world is also a simulation, made to convince humans they were free” it sort of goes against all the monologuing that smith and the architect do about how humans rebelled against versions of the matrix in which they were free
That’s true, but I’d argue that the more personal that any art is, the fewer people who will instantly understand their meaning.
Think about it like this, if you were watching a movie in a language you don’t speak (without subtitles), you could still enjoy a lot of it, but might not be able to fully follow the story. But, the story is still there if you know how to hear it. Sometimes you just need someone else to help translate.
Eh, the subtext in 2 and 3 is neat but the first movie is by far the best. It sets up a premise and concludes it beautifully and doesn’t get too big for its britches. I still enjoy some of the over the top moments from 2 and 3 but there’s definitely a leap and I’m not sure the pay off is as good as the first film.
Matrix is great all the way through. The problem is that a lot of people didn’t understand the story. There’s a good explainer on YouTube by Looper.
My only real gripe with the matrix trilogy is where Neo can “see” agent smith in Bane’s body and “see” all the machines at the machine city. It didn’t need that over the top messiah thing when he was already the messiah simply because of his power within the matrix.
And if the idea is “the real world is also a simulation, made to convince humans they were free” it sort of goes against all the monologuing that smith and the architect do about how humans rebelled against versions of the matrix in which they were free
That’s explained in the video. Neo can see the machines because he communed with the Source.
Sure, but it is also the medium’s responsibility to help the audience understand.
That’s true, but I’d argue that the more personal that any art is, the fewer people who will instantly understand their meaning.
Think about it like this, if you were watching a movie in a language you don’t speak (without subtitles), you could still enjoy a lot of it, but might not be able to fully follow the story. But, the story is still there if you know how to hear it. Sometimes you just need someone else to help translate.
Eh, the subtext in 2 and 3 is neat but the first movie is by far the best. It sets up a premise and concludes it beautifully and doesn’t get too big for its britches. I still enjoy some of the over the top moments from 2 and 3 but there’s definitely a leap and I’m not sure the pay off is as good as the first film.
I agree they’re better than this says, but the first is also the best, by a moderate margin. The other two get a lot of shit that isn’t deserved.