Maybe I get the Matrix Revolutions now?

The movie, with the most elaborate sfx ever, dissapoints, b/c at the end, Neo meets ‘God’ and becomes, again, a ‘Christ’ figure. (I use that as a term, not a religious title.) It seemed like a lame, repetitive ending in which the Wachowskis, who have shown us how much they known of mythology, push their religious beliefs on us. Great. As if the Jesus meme hadn’t…

Anyways, I’m just starting a study of the saviour god mythologies that were around at and before the time the Jesus story began, i.e. Mithra, Dionysus, Isus, Horus, and many more! My point is that now I choose to think- and I doubt it, very much, but I like to think of it this way- that the Wachowskis weren’t pushing the Jesus thing, they were creating a modern saviour god. I like that. That makes the movie much better and makes it flow a lot better with the second film, in which Neo, according to some analyses I’ve read, represented the Hindu god (Vishnu?) who realized there were many before him in a continuous cycle.

Of course, this theory falls apart- I mean, the ‘God’- head says ‘it is done’ for goodness sake, and there’s a cross of light on his chest- but I like it. In Matrix 1 he was a ‘Christ’ figure; by 3, he is a saviour god mythology. Justifies the franchise in my mind.

I think you shouldn’t have been surprised. Neo being revealed as the messiah was the gun in act one – of course he has to be sacrificed in act three. What else do you do with a messiah?

–Cliffy

Give him a buddy named “Bill” and a free trip aboard a time machine?

Ow! Stop hitting me!

I found it’s best to just ignore the sequels, in that they’re sufficiently incoherent (as well as painfully dull at times) to ruin a perfectly good premise.

That said, had they been more successful, it wouldn’t surprise me if a final fourth film would have been planned called Matrix: Resurrection in which Neo (who, it is implied at the end of the third film, might not be completely dead) returns to lead the humans out of the matrix once and for all.

This process, of course, will involve a lot of latex-clad kung-fu, just as Jesus said it would (Matt 5:17).

If you’re examining the films for philosophical and mythical relevance, you’re looking way too deep. In fact, you’re making the mistake that the filmmakers made when it came time to make the almost-unwatchable second film in the three.

Not to insult them - the first one was a great movie - but they have the philosophical depth of a philosophy 101 student pontificating over a nice warm bong.

I enjoyed all three movies. I thought that the second and third comleted the cycle well.

No, I agree with the above poster, I am looking too deep. I just made something up to try to rationalize one of the most sentimentally-crap-sell-out-endings I’ve seen, is all. :wally (Both me and the Wachowskis being the putzes here)

And absolutely, the sequels should be ignored. The original had buddhist philosophy/existentialism/sci-fi and a tech. breakthrough in the industry. A great film for our time, many agree, when you get to the bare bones.

I love the first film primarily because I’m a sucker for visual style. It had that in spades - I felt the latter two lacked much of the cool look that the first one had.

I think they al had a few good moments, but the latter films seemed not to have so much tying them together. That said, they weren’t so much bad as blah, with the 3rd being far better than the 2nd. I admit, I enjoyed the final fight, though I liked Agent Smith more than Neo.

I went to the first one without knowing anything. When the whackness started, it REALLY drew me into the movie, and it was by far the best movie experience that I ever had.

The second and the third just seemed too much like an action movie with a sci-fi overcoat.

Really? I actually thought they did an interesting job of reconciling nearly antithetical Eastern and Western philosophies (I hate to call Taoism a “religion”).

Ah. Well. That explains why I got it then. :smiley:

[Jon Stewart]Have you ever seen The Matrix movies…on weed?[/Jon Stewart]

OK, of course the question of whether the second two films are worthwhile is a matter of taste, but, speaking as someone with a Philosophy degree, the first film had the philosophical depth of a couple 14 year olds shooting the shit at two in the morning, and the next two actually said something philosophically interesting. The first movie posed the question “What if none of it were real?”, which has been old hat since 17th Century. The second two answered the question. (Of course, it helps that they got the answer right.)

–Cliffy

The answer being that I’d spend two hours bored out of my pants in a movie theater while a French dude rambles on about causality? :slight_smile:

Well, I am not bored by the question, “What if none of this is real?” even if it has been asked and answered, and the second two had so much going on philosophically that they kept me interested. I loved the little girl program and the realization by Neo that programs are people too.