[Nottingham] Matrix Reloaded

[Martin Waryniak]

Interesting discussion so far. I personally feel that both films are 
great (I watched Matrix (1) about 5 times + in the last few years 
because it simply is a great film. Matrix Revolution is amazing as well, 
the car chase - respect.

But I do not only like those films because of the visuals and the 
(successful) attempt to push the boundary further and create something 
never seen before. After watching the first film I tried to understand 
all the metaphors and symbolism in the film. I wont go into details 
about this but just say that I found the second film full of hidden 
metaphors as well. I ran a search on google and came with this website 
which very nicely analyses the second film from philosophers view. Have 
a read, its very interesting.

http://www.corporatemofo.com/stories/051803matrix.htm

Martin

Graeme Fowler wrote:

>On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 22:10, James Gibbon wrote:
>  
>
>>As a matter of fact, I have read, and understood both.
>>    
>>
>
>Therefore I bow to your greater education; this does not however qualify
>you admirably to rip the arse out the one thing that the majority of the
>entertainment underclass have been waiting for ages for. If you didn't
>like it, fair enough. Lots of the rest of us did, and you're entitled to
>your opinion. This is, after all, what philosophy is really all about
>(on a grand scale).
>
>  
>
>>As far as the 'philosophy of the Matrix films' is
>>concerned - ROTFLMAO, I doubt whether even the producers
>>expected anyone over the age of 15 to take it seriously 
>>    
>>
>
>I don't think I mentioned 'philosophy of the Matrix films'. In fact, I
>don't think I even alluded to it. I merely mentioned the amount of
>philosophy the cast were expected to read in order to attempt to
>understand some of the twists in the script. I happen to agree that
>attempting to cast any modern form of mass entertainment in the same
>light as the classical philosophers is, if you'll excuse the phrasing,
>bollcks; however I also happen to fundamentally disagree with your "all
>style no substance" claim. These films are the only mass-market films in
>recent times with the faintest jot of an attempt at having many layers
>of meaning to different mindsets.
>
>  
>
>>Don't get me wrong - I don't like ITV sitcoms.  But the Matrix 
>>movies are - apart from the spectacular fight scenes / sets /
>>effects / etc - superficial, insubstantial toss.  I'm not 
>>entirely knocking it, because it IS entertainment of a kind, but 
>>it is hilarious to see them mistaken for truly good films.
>>    
>>
>
>Why? People now class (see below for an example) many films disregarded
>as "utter toss" at the time of their release as classics. All I'm saying
>is that it makes a change for a film to be aimed at a segment of the
>populace in terms of intellect, class (not in the UK social sense) and
>way-of-life (as opposed to philosophy) as opposed to a "market" as
>defined by researchers. This was a film made by geeks, for geeks. And
>for once the geeks are standing up and quietly saying "YEAH!". Under
>their breath :)
>
>  
>
>>The last Bond film suffered from the same emphasis on the
>>impressive as well.  Impressive photography, stunts and sets, great
>>soundtrack, deft editing, crap film.  'From Russia With Love' must
>>have been made on a fraction of its budget, but it engages with the
>>viewer in a way that 'Die Another Way' never will.
>>    
>>
>
>"Die Another Day", surely? And here I have to disagree - all Bond films
>are style rather than substance. That's the whole point, and that's why
>they are now regarded as classics. If the production team had ever tried
>to intellectualise or otherwise change Bond in any way, that would have
>been it for the whole series.
>
>Graeme
>  
>

-- 
Martin Waryniak
School of Computer Science
University of Nottingham