h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Matrix Revolutions - A1983837
Author: He Lihui - U211446

Check it out!!!

Another review of a trendy film. It's well written, but I have to say that I thought the two subsequent Matrix films were a load of tosh. That's just my opinion, of course.

As a general point, can't this sort of stuff be directed towards http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective? That's exactly what it's there for: reviews of cultural ephemera, such as this film and crappy garage bands.

A very misanthropic and bruised FM .

Glad to find this isn't a spoiler As it stands though it is more a philosophical discussion of the main theme of the trilogy.

One suggestion then would be to re-title so that the theme of the entry is indicated more precisely, for example "The philosophy behind the Matrix trilogy" This would then be open to criticism that it was an opinion piece - no quotes given by the producers/authors as to their intentions are included.

Someone coming to this entry with the current title could legitimately complain that it didn't fulfil its promise of informing about the third part of the trilogy, interesting though the speculations are. If it is to be a review of the film it ought to be more specific on actors, writers, producers, costs, roles, and other usual movie trivia.

Pimmsaloonie

Thanks for pointing that out. Indeed, the write-up was inspired more by the philosophy of the trilogy rather than the last installment. A review would naturally require more attention to detail which is definitely missing here.

i think you make the rather fundamental error of assuming that the philosophy odf the matrix is good. it isnt. in fact, its infantile and useless, msimply because it applies only to a world where there is a matrix (ie not this one)

How do you know there isn't a matrix in this world?

THID is why i hate the matrix. it gives 20 million idiots the chance to fail to sound clever in an especially spectacular manner.

Well, what is assumption for one man might be another's conviction. Like I have mentioned in the write-up, there are many interpretations of the philosophy possible, as for why you make a particular one, there can be many reasons. It would of course be useful for our purpose here if you state the reasons for your negation of what you perceive the trilogy to be. In absence of which, I sure am tempted to think of a review of the movie on amazon.com where a psychologist has outlined possible reasons for a negative reaction.

Thank you for your comments anyway, hope we benefit from your insight!

I think that the first Matrix film was good, if rather long. However, the whole idea of what makes us human, gives us personality, was far better done in a film called Dark City. That film eschewed violence and action for the sake of atmosphere and plot.
The other two Matrix films are over-extended, self-mythologising twaddle. Their affectations of philosophy are merely an attempt to veneer scanty subject matter with a spurious credibility, to dupe teenage martial arts and violence freaks into thinking that they are seeing something profound. Now, these are (admittedly highly subjective) personal opinions, but no less valid in that context than your views of the film. So my opinions shouldn't really be in the EG and, for the same reasons, should yours.

just so. all theyve really done is done a bit of cartesian philosophy, rendered a little meaningless by the situation in the film, and sprinkled a bit of free will into the mix. unfortunately, because the film is set in a computer and because our world isnt, the philosophy doenst really carry over and therefore doesnt really matter.

also, thier ships have got vaguely biblical names: (nebuchadnezzar, logos etc) this does not make the film spiritual.

It is interesting for me to note that while I chose to look at a particular aspect of the movie, others saw something different. Well, I personally thought that the movie had something to offer to everyone. The corollary of that can of course be it had nothing to 'satisfy' either. In any case, the point I am trying to make is that the trilogy is not all about mindless violence and special effects, that one can look beyond all that to see something different. That is of course if he/she so choses. As for whether the 'beyond the facade' was something genuine and coherent or just great ideas forced into bogus cohesion making the movie seem rather clumsy, I have nothing more to say that I have already in the write-up. Different perspectives yield different perceptions.

Thanks for your comments, I sure am starting to enjoy this!

It is interesting for me to note that while I chose to look at a particular aspect of the movie, others saw something different. Well, I personally thought that the movie had something to offer to everyone. The corollary of that can of course be it had nothing to 'satisfy' either/anyone. In any case, the point I am trying to make is that the trilogy is not all about mindless violence and special effects, that one can look beyond all that to see something different. That is of course if he/she so chooses. As for whether the 'beyond the facade' is something genuine and coherent or just great ideas forced into bogus cohesion, making the movie rather clumsy, I have nothing more to say than I have already in the write-up. Different perspectives yield different perceptions.

Thanks for your comments, I sure am starting to enjoy this!

I see the title has changed. Better

The criticism that this is merely an opinion is not sufficient to disregard this entry. As you acknowledge in the entry there are other opinions about the films.

Suggestion: remove the first title and the paragraph following as they do not add to what you say subsequently.

I would alter the first sentence after that
from: 'The Matrix trilogy is well packaged because'
to: 'The Matrix Trilogy can appeal at more than one level as'

style/typo: include a 'that' before Industrial Light and Magic, as my comprehension suffered a hiccup imagining you were talking about a benevolent company
: add a 'to' to the last translation at the end.

Pimmsaloonie

The criticism that this is merely an opinion is a perfectly *valid* reason why it shouldn't be EG material. Other entries on film have served primarily to set the film in some kind of greater context, such as the Terry Gilliam/La Mancha entry. That was all about how disastrously a project can go wrong, and echoes both backwards and forwards along the history of filmmaking.

However, I think that *this* entry focusses entirely the *author's* perception of the 'philosophy' of the film. As such, it doesn't set the film in any greater context. If I were reviewing the film I'd dismiss the philosophical aspects as I have done so beforehand. The subsequent two films were twaddle and the philosophy is a meretricious addition designed to imbue the films with some spurious crebility, pure and simple. However, I wouldn't expect that *my* opinions, which are equally as valid, and which would have an *equal* right to go into the EG, would cut the mustard.

i agree, although perhaps not quite in such a curmudgeonly manner

Well, you don't have to endure bruised ribs after some tw*t in a stolen Maestro drove into you. However, if you'd like to empathise fully with my predicament, I'm sure I can arrange a similar experience.

Hark, is that a chorus of detractors joing in with me?
http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,1082197,00.html

So can this entry be improved by balancing the author's views with some details of those who have reached different conclusions? Or do you think piling up opinions is not sufficient to make a EG entry?

Pimms

Well, it's only a personal opinion, but I don't see how discussing philosophical minutae of fashionable cultural ephemera enriches the Guide. If the author were to start from the premise of why the 'Matrix phenomenon' was so popular, and how the nutter-in-the-bus-shelter declamations on human existence managed to sell it to people who should have known better until they woke up and realised what a load of tosh it all was, then I think it might serve as a useful reference point for readers at some future date who are bemused as to what all the fuss was about.
However, like a lot of other people, I think it's disappeared up its own backside, and it would be nice to read an article that at least maintains a healthy air of detachment and takes a step back from this headlong rectal plunge, instead of jumping into the ordure with a gleeful shout of 'me too!'

So it is more a plea for greater objectivity and balance than disagreement with the serious attempt to succinctly expound the mysticism of the trilogy.

Pimms
(if you follow the crowd you may end up leaping with the lemmings )