O
old.Wildfire
Guest
I'm amazed no-one has posted this thread already (other than a shambling non-spoiler post on the general OT board). Since I've already mentioned my thoughts on it to others elsewhere I'm just going to amalgamate two of my forum threads from elsewhere into this one and open the playing field for others' comments.
Post 1 -
Personally I thought the love scene was very well done, and not in the least bit drawn out. The intention was clearly not to show neo and trinity's relationship but to demonstrate the very primal, animal and yet still beautiful nature of the human sex drive - something it did, very powerfully. They could have completely removed the trinity/neo shots (though that wouldn't have done anything for the storyline) and it would still have been a very powerful scene.
Conversely, neo's encounter with the architect was rattled off so fast that the majority of it was rushed past my brain and replaced with new brain-fodder before I could really digest and understand it. I know there was something in there about choice, something about an anomoly and something about an equation, but beyond that... Bring on the DVD.
Those who went to the film expecting a deep and meaningful experience may be disappointed, but those with a gun fetish or philosophical bent will find themselves with plenty to chew on. True, some of the one-liners were delivered with completely the wrong emphasis, but I think a lot of people are slating the film very harshly simply because it wasn't ground-breaking compared to the first.
Personally I had a great time and would recommend it to anyone, I think I might even go and see it again. It's not particularly deep, but the matrix experience is still one of the most absorbing to grace cinema screens in a long time.
Post 2 -
- I don't think it was very well explained, but I don't think Zion was destroyed. I think what what they were describing were the machines breaking through the perimeter defences. Maybe.
- I have two trains of thought regarding neo and agent smith. The first is that the third film will rather disappointingly be an homage to 1984 and be an extremely predictable "other" matrix situation. The description of how Zion has already been destroyed 6 times would be explained nicely by this. The second thought is that drawing on what was said in the first film that thoughts, memories etc were simply electrical impulses, there may have been a convergance or crossing over between some aspects of agent smith and neo. Smith may also be able to transfer his conciousness into a living person (again, perhaps by over-riding the impulses in their brain with a copy of his own) and thereby escape from the matrix. Only the box-within-a-box theory really explains neo's extra-matrical powers at the moment... I can't come up with a suitably sensible way for someone to assimilate machine abilities...
- Neo must die to save mankind in Revolutions. Think Jesus. Sure, he's already died once (twice now?) but I think all the discussions regarding choice are going to come down to him having to decide between his own life and the life of others (read: trinity and his unborn child).
Post 1 -
Personally I thought the love scene was very well done, and not in the least bit drawn out. The intention was clearly not to show neo and trinity's relationship but to demonstrate the very primal, animal and yet still beautiful nature of the human sex drive - something it did, very powerfully. They could have completely removed the trinity/neo shots (though that wouldn't have done anything for the storyline) and it would still have been a very powerful scene.
Conversely, neo's encounter with the architect was rattled off so fast that the majority of it was rushed past my brain and replaced with new brain-fodder before I could really digest and understand it. I know there was something in there about choice, something about an anomoly and something about an equation, but beyond that... Bring on the DVD.
Those who went to the film expecting a deep and meaningful experience may be disappointed, but those with a gun fetish or philosophical bent will find themselves with plenty to chew on. True, some of the one-liners were delivered with completely the wrong emphasis, but I think a lot of people are slating the film very harshly simply because it wasn't ground-breaking compared to the first.
Personally I had a great time and would recommend it to anyone, I think I might even go and see it again. It's not particularly deep, but the matrix experience is still one of the most absorbing to grace cinema screens in a long time.
Post 2 -
- I don't think it was very well explained, but I don't think Zion was destroyed. I think what what they were describing were the machines breaking through the perimeter defences. Maybe.
- I have two trains of thought regarding neo and agent smith. The first is that the third film will rather disappointingly be an homage to 1984 and be an extremely predictable "other" matrix situation. The description of how Zion has already been destroyed 6 times would be explained nicely by this. The second thought is that drawing on what was said in the first film that thoughts, memories etc were simply electrical impulses, there may have been a convergance or crossing over between some aspects of agent smith and neo. Smith may also be able to transfer his conciousness into a living person (again, perhaps by over-riding the impulses in their brain with a copy of his own) and thereby escape from the matrix. Only the box-within-a-box theory really explains neo's extra-matrical powers at the moment... I can't come up with a suitably sensible way for someone to assimilate machine abilities...
- Neo must die to save mankind in Revolutions. Think Jesus. Sure, he's already died once (twice now?) but I think all the discussions regarding choice are going to come down to him having to decide between his own life and the life of others (read: trinity and his unborn child).
