Since the last movie got so much discussion going I thought that we might want to discuss the final part.
        I loved the effects of the sentinels swarming into Zion and I liked the way that not being able to see past decisions that you don't understand worked out. I thought that it was generally a better movie than the second but not as good as the first. That said, I'm getting a little tired of Christian allegories.

I have to agree with you there on all points. In general, the CG was fantastic - especially the swarms. It showed up a little at times in the texturing when they were superman-fighting.

I'm still not sure how much I liked it, though. I reckon it gets somewhere between a 5 and a 10. This is a good thing. It means I have to think about it. Can't help but think whether or not it could have been better if he was just left to die in the corridor in the first movie - it would have been a real groin-shot of an ending and been different from the usual saccharine flavoured endings that Hollywood trots out. That said, I did come away from the show with a feeling of incompleteness - methinks there shall be more (especially because of the old Western ending "Will we every see him again?" "I think so, sonny Jim, I think so", though this could be more of a Sherry Bobbins in the Simpsons where she gets sucked into the engine of a passing plane).

My friends and I decided that we would have thought it was a better movie had we never seen the second one. I was fairly decent, although I found a few parts a bit tedious. Like why the hell fight smith so long if all he had to do was pull a ben kenobi--stand there and be struck down. argh! Yes, I know its a movie and they just had it for effect, but effect for effect's sake is boring.

Also, the whole entering the french guys place. "Let's copy the matrix again! Everyone like that part where they saved morpheus!" I mean, I felt absolutely no sense of fear or foreboding about that bit. Although I liked the way they ended up making their deal.

I loved the sentinel swarms as well. That was frickin' cool. Especially when the captain guy gets it. As for the AVPU thingies or whatever they were called, I think they were just flashy CG but not very realistic military vehicles. I liked how tenacious the drilling machines were.

The kid was less irritating this time. :-)

In Response to Grimicus (#10188):

I thought that the kid was more annoying this time, but maybe that was just because we saw him more. Admittedly he wasn't so bad in some of the bits in the middle.

I also agree that it became tedious at times. It was a combination of knowing how things are going to have to turn out even if you don't know exactly how they will (the french guy's place) and just not caring about the characters as much. I also thought that the way the movie began was a bit abrupt. I don't want to see too much time devoted to recapping but I think that they spent to little. It seemed that the third movie was meant to be watched right after the second one. I think that they gave better background at the beginning of the second movie but that might just be my faulty memory.

At the end when the architect agrees to let anyone who wants out of the matrix out I couldn't help but wonder how they were going to allow this choice to be made freely. You certainly can't just tell everyone that the world is an illusion without making the decision for them (at least in many cases). Also in allowing anyone to leave the machines may eventually be left without a power source. Essentially they have just agreed to give up their existence at least as it is now.

That's enough nit picking for now. The one thing about the movies is that they encourage you to think more than most Hollywood productions.

First and foremost, I wish to say to Spamphir, I was right [goats.com] about Agent Smith. In the words of Nelson, "HA-ha."

Now, back to the movie. I agree this one was better than the second, but not as good as the first. All of these movies have been quite enjoyable for me especially for their visual appeal and use of philosophy and theology. Though, the total reliance on christianity by the end was unfortunate.

My biggest gripe is the decline in the dialogue. The first movie was stiff. The second two weren't only stiff but reused lines that weren't good enough to warrant a second use and certainly should not have been said a third time. Example: "There are some things that never change. Some things do change..." I hope if there are any other Matrix movies the Wachowski boys hire a writer and don't go the way of Lucas.

My second gripe is the ending was incomplete. So what if the war stopped? That wasn't the only issue. Do the humans get to move back to the surface? Do humans and machines work together to try to clear the sky? How do any of them generate power? Is it okay to still have the Matrix with it's human bodies generating the power to run it and the machines?

All and all, I still liked the movie. I look forward to seeing it again and figuring out some answers now I know what to expect.

In Response to Oedipa_Maas (#10192):

First and foremost, I wish to say to Spamphir, I was right about Agent Smith. In the words of Nelson, "HA-ha.

Which of several points in that whole conversation were you right, and I wrong, about?

I hain't seen the movie yet. (yes,yes, Geek Points -5 for not seeing a major geek movie within 12 hours of public release. Go on with your lives now.)

In Response to zamphir (#10193):

Go see the movie. You are an embarrassment to all geek-kind in your sluggishness.

They spend a bit of time at various points explaining the complexity of Agent Smith.

In Response to Oedipa_Maas (#10195):

Well, see, it's just a really tough choice.

Drive half an hour to a corporate movie theater...

Or walk three blocks to a local bar and have good beer.

In Response to zamphir (#10196):

Oooh, I'm going to have to step in and moderate:

Oedipa makes a good point about the 'geek therefore scifi' theorum being ignored, however the overwhelming body of evidence points to the movie sucking (the only good 'pro' review was from Harry Knowles, and even the fanboy reviews have been... lacking), weakening the original point and allowing Zammy's 'beer > matrix 3' ploy to win the day.

As much as it pains me to say, Zee wins this round.

In Response to mcgrue (#10197):

it pains me

Maybe that's the branch Unfalln's "waving" around. Or was that a root? It was really hard to tell, it was kinda small.

I'm going to chime in on this tomorrow.

In Response to mcgrue (#10197):

And you call yourselves geeks. Bah.

Get thee to a movie house.

Drink beer before and after.

In Response to jen (#10191):

The kid seemed more annoying to me this time too. I think that was more because of his lines. His personality was consistent between the two movies.

I was surprised the kid didn't play a larger role in the whole story after watching his chapter in the Animatrix. His way of getting out of the Matrix, transubstantiation, was unique and seemed significant to the underlying christian theme.

In Response to zamphir (#10198):

I'm not waving any branches around, I'm branching out in unspecified directions.
If you want to bring rooting into this, I'll tell you that as opposed to branching, there are very clear and concise directions in which that goes. And as this is branching away from the subject at hand, there'll be no more talk of it in this discussion.

I think you should be watching more of those educational movies before you go watch something as... well... pg rated... as the matrix. They even have to pause for effect before they have a snog.

In Response to jon (#10199):

Liked it that much, eh?

In Response to Oedipa_Maas (#10235):

It was a complete letdown. They had a chance to do something truly unique and they copped out. They left all the good questions unanswered.

"Why does this happen?"

"Because it does."

Zen koans are supposed to be a way to relax the mind for meditation, not fodder for sci-fi stories. If you want people to suspend their disbelief, you need to either make the story compelling or make the rest of the universe believable enough that people will overlook the bit that needs some cognitive dissonance applied to it. They did neither of those things with this movie.

Simply put, it was poor storytelling.

In Response to jon (#10239):

Simply put, it was poor storytelling.
From guys who got their start in comic books?

Shocked! I tell you, Shocked!

In Response to jon (#10239):

LOL. How true. As a Taoist, the loose and whored-out allusions to Chinese philosophy irked me. You can't make references like that and not explain it properly to the sheep.

Let's call a spade a spade here, people. That last movie sucked. It was no where near as good as the original; it was campy, smarmy, and over-done. Hell, *I* was about ready to chop off Trinity's head just to get her to shut up.

I'm tired of people saying it was "okay". Sheez. How could you have loved the first one and even come CLOSE to remotely liking the third one? I was so very disappointed. And after seeing the second one, no, my standards weren't all that high. The dialogue was a trite, crappy mess! The W. bros. pulled a G.Lucas and totally overdid the CG. It was cool, but it was overdone as a whole. They fell in love with their egos and their budget.

Rather than go on for paragraphs about every little facet of Revolutions I will simply end here and say that it--yes--sucked.

In Response to jon (#10239):

Simply put, it was poor storytelling.

Indeed. Nothing upsets me more than a good story gone bad. I hope Kill Bill Vol. 2 isn't as much of a letdown, or else someone will suffer dire consequences [goats.com].

In Response to zamphir (#10242):

Yeah, stick it to those comic book hacks! Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman have it coming!

In Response to mcgrue (#10247):

You've obviously missed my complaints about 'American Gods'. And don't even get me started on 'Watchmen'.

There's simply no competitive forces at play to make the majority of PRINT comic book writers have any skill or craft as writers. If someone like John Kovalic can sell THOUSANDS of books on the strength of his gag-writing alone (it's not his artwork. He'll even tell you his main characters are based on a square, a circle, and a triangle), then why should the guys who can sell MILLIONS of books using last year's plotlines do any work?

In Response to zamphir (#10248):

American Gods isn't his best work (I'm more partial to Stardust as far as the novels go)... but it is the most widely recieved to date.

And please educate me as to the faults of The Watchmen. I'm all ears.

You can generally sell a bit as long as you're published in general, as far as I understand it. Even the suckiest of the suck have a niche. However, this fact shouldn't detract from the concept that there are, in fact, a few good comic books out there.

In Response to mcgrue (#10249):

I'm not saying that there aren't good comic books out there.

I'm saying that there's no competitive pressure for the majority of comic books to be good.

If Marvel can sell 200,000 or a million copies of "Death of WonderBra Lad, part 12 the Final Showdown - in this issue Someone DIES!!!!!!", then almost anyone can sell a few thousand copies of ANYTHING.

So there's no pressure to convince two guys who trained as graphic artists and wanted to make comic books that they need to learn how to write.

And making a certified Hollywood Blockbuster smash isn't going to change that, either. The first one had to be decently written in part to help get the movie made. After that, all bets are off.

And no, I'm not going to get started on The Watchmen. You really desparately want to hear my ranting and ravings on that, go start another thread. And my opinions of American Gods are left as an exercise of the 'search' button.

The movie was everything I expected it to be. Which I believe is why I liked it. I wasn't looking for something that was like/as good as the first. The movie accomplished everything I wanted it to, except maybe the ending, where I have a sneaking suspicion they pulled a fast one on us.

In Response to Oedipa_Maas (#10192):

First and foremost, I wish to say to Spamphir, I was right about Agent Smith

Well, actually... in the post you linked, you mentioned that Smith "completely overwrote" the mind of the person he copied himself into. The third movie is full of counter-examples to that claim. (I think, for reasons I'll explain later, that Bane was speaking for himself at times. Smith remembered enough to at least immitate the little girl when the Oracle asked what he'd done to her. The Oracle retained enough control to tip Neo off as to what had to be done. Neo retained enough control to destroy smith.)

My second gripe is the ending was incomplete.

Well, yes and no. They didn't tie everything up in a little bow with a tag that says "happily ever after", but they did resolve the major conflict of the series.

When I read Grapes of Wrath in high school, I was annoyed because the ending seemed like a non-ending; I didn't really see the end of the last chapter as any more significant than the end of any other chapter. My English teacher argued that at any point in life, things are left unresolved; they could have gone on another chapter to resolve more of the open issues, but in that timeframe more issues would have arisen. She had a point.

The Shawshank Redemption: really liked the movie, but at four different points before it ended, it should have ended. They kept dragging it on to tie up all loose ends. Bad move. When they cut to the final scene with the Oracle and the Architect, I was worried that they were making the same mistake; luckily not.

That said, they did build up cerain questions enough that I think they should have provided better answers for those questions. In that respect, I am disappointed.

In Response to mcgrue (#10197):

You trust reviewers to tell you what movies are good?

Kids these days.