I just saw Matrix Reloaded...

[magilicuti]

Very disappointed. The 1st one was much better. Not sure where they are going with the plot on this one. The action sequences were awesome though but some had nothing to do with the plot at all. The fight scenes were basically just thrown in there to an otherwise boring plot. They weren't stingy on the special effects atleast. The movie ends abruptly which was obvious and had the theatre all booing as they left.

[mikeathens]

yeah i kinda figured this one would be a flop, with these annoying powerade commercials and 200 other sponsors it seems like they had $$$ in their minds instead of being rewarded by making a good film.

mike athens

[magilicuti]

the movie doesn't even actually start till you are into it 30 minutes

[santaforeal]

i disagree thought the movie was good. very deep plot. you have to stick around till the end of the credits they have the third movies preview at the end.

[njstacked2]

Great Article for any MATRIX fan!

THE UNREAL THING

by ADAM GOPNIK

What’s wrong with the Matrix?

Issue of 2003-05-19

Posted 2003-05-12

For the past four years, a lot of people have been obsessed with the movie

“The Matrix.†As the sequel, “The Matrix Reloaded,†arrived in theatres this

week, it was obvious that the strange, violent science-fiction film, by the

previously more or less unknown Wachowski brothers, had already inspired

both a cult and a craze. (And had made a lot of money into the bargain,

enough to fuel two sequels; “Matrix Revolutions†is supposed to be out in

November.) There hasn’t been anything quite like it since “2001: A Space

Odyssey,†which had a similar mix of mysticism, solemnity, and mega-effects.

Shortly after its mostly unheralded release, in 1999, “The Matrix†became an

egghead extase. The Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek’s latest work,

“Welcome to the Desert of the Real,†took its title from a bit of dialogue

in the film; college courses on epistemology have used “The Matrix†as a

chief point of reference; and there are at least three books devoted to

teasing out its meanings. (“Taking the Red Pill: Science, Philosophy and

Religion in ‘The Matrix’†is a typical title.) If the French philosopher

Jean Baudrillard, whose books—“The Gulf War Did Not Take Place†is

one—popularized the view that reality itself has become a simulation, has

not yet embraced the film it may be because he is thinking of suing for a

screen credit. (The “desert of the real†line came from him.) The movie, it

seemed, dramatized a host of doubts and fears and fascinations, some half as

old as time, some with a decent claim to be postmodern. To a lot of people,

it looked like a fable: our fable.

The first “Matrixâ€â€”for anyone who has been living in Antarctica for the past

four years—depended on a neatly knotted marriage between a spectacle and a

speculation. The spectacle has by now become part of the common language of

action movies: the amazing “balletic†fight scenes and the slow-motion

aerial display of destruction. The speculation, more peculiar, and even, in

its way, esoteric, is that reality is a fiction, programmed into the heads

of sleeping millions by evil computers. When we meet the hero of the

“Matrix†saga, he’s a computer programmer—online name Neo—who works in a

generic office building in a present-day, Chicago-like metropolis.

Revelation arrives when he’s recruited by a mysterious guerrilla figure

named Morpheus, played by Laurence Fishburne with a baritone aplomb worthy

of Orson Welles. Morpheus offers Neo a choice between two pills, one blue

and one red: “You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your

bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill . . .

and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.†Neo takes the red pill and

wakes up as he really is: a comatose body in a cocoon, his brain penetrated

by a cable that inserts the Matrix, an interactive virtual-reality program,

directly into his consciousness. All the people he has ever known, he

realizes, are recumbent in incubators, stacks of identical clear pods, piled

in high towers; the cocooned sleepers have the simulation piped into their

heads by the machines as music is piped into headphones. What they take to

be experiences is simply the effect of brain impulses interacting with the

virtual-reality program. Guerrilla warriors who have been unplugged from the

Matrix survive in an underground city called Zion, and travel in hovercraft

to unplug promising humans. Morpheus has chosen to unplug Neo, it turns out,

because he believes Neo is the One—the Messiah figure who will see through

the Matrix and help free mankind. The first film, which told of Neo’s

education by Morpheus and his pursuit of the awesomely cute and

Matrix-defying Trinity (the rubber-suited Carrie-Anne Moss), ends with Neo

seeing the Matrix for what it is: a row of green digits, which he has

learned to alter as easily as a skilled player can alter the levels of a

video game.

What made the spectacle work was the ingenuity and the attention to detail

with which it was rendered. The faintly greenish cast and the curious

sterility of life within the Matrix; the reddish grungy reality of Morpheus’

s ship; the bizarre and convincing interlude with the elderly Oracle; and,

of course, those action sequences, the weightless midair battles—few movies

have had so much faith in their own mythology. And the actors rose to it,

Laurence Fishburne managing to anchor the whole thing in a grandiloquent

theatricality. Even Keanu Reeves, bless him, played his part with a

stolidity that made him the only possible hero of the film, so slow in his

reactions that he seemed perfect for virtual reality, his expressions

changing with the finger-drumming time lag of a digital image loading

online.

If it was the spectacle that made the movie work, though, it was the

speculations that made it last in people’s heads. It spoke to an old

nightmare. The basic conceit of “The Matrixâ€â€”the notion that the material

world is a malevolent delusion, designed by the forces of evil with the

purpose of keeping people in a state of slavery, has a history. It is most

famous as the belief for which the medieval Christian sect known as the

Cathars fought and died, and in great numbers, too. The Cathars were sure

that the material world was a phantasm created by Satan, and that Jesus of

Nazareth—their Neo—had shown mankind a way beyond that matrix by standing

outside it and seeing through it. The Cathars were fighting a losing battle,

but the interesting thing was that they were fighting at all. It is not

unusual to take up a sword and die for a belief. It is unusual to take up a

sword to die for the belief that swords do not exist.

The Cathars, like the heroes of “The Matrix,†had an especially handy

rationale for violence: if it ain’t real, it can’t really bleed. One reason

that the violence in “The Matrixâ€â€”those floating fistfights, the

annihilation of entire squads of soldiers by cartwheeling guerrillas—can

fairly be called balletic is that, according to the rules of the movie, what

is being destroyed is not real in the first place: the action has the safety

of play and the excitement of the apocalyptic. Of course, the destruction of

a blank, featureless, mirrored skyscraper by a helicopter, and the massacre

of the soldiers who protect it, has a different resonance now than it did in

1999. The notion that some human beings are not really human but, rather,

mere slaves, nonhuman ciphers, and therefore expendable, is exactly the

vision of the revolutionary hero—and also of the mass terrorist. The Matrix

is where all violent fanatics insist that they are living, even when they

are not.

It would have been nice if some of that complexity, or any complexity, had

made its way into the sequel. But—to get to the bad news—“Matrix Reloadedâ€

is, unlike the first film, a conventional comic-book movie, in places a

campy conventional comic-book movie, and in places a ludicrously campy

conventional comic-book movie. It feels not so much like “Matrix II†as like

“Matrix XIVâ€â€”a franchise film made after a decade of increasing grosses and

thinning material. The thing that made the Matrix so creepy—the idea of a

sleeping human population with a secondary life in a simulated world—is

barely referred to in the new movie; in fact, if you hadn’t seen the first

film, not just the action but the basic premise would be pretty much

unintelligible. The first forty-five minutes—set mainly in Zion, that human

city buried deep in the earth—are particularly excruciating. Zion seems to

be modelled on the parking garage of a giant indoor mall, with nested levels

clustered around an atrium. Like every good-guy citadel in every

science-fiction movie ever made, Zion is peopled by stern-jawed uniformed

men who say things like “And what if you’re wrong, God damn it, what then?â€

and “Are you doubting my command, Captain?†and by short-haired and

surprisingly powerful women whose eyes moisten but don’t overflow as they

watch the men prepare to go off to war. Everybody wears earth tones and

burlap and silk, and there are craggy perches from which speeches can be

made while the courageous citizens hold torches. (The stuccoed, soft-contour

interiors of Zion look like the most interesting fusion restaurant in Santa

Fe.)

The only thing setting Zion apart from the good-guy planets in “The Phantom

Menace†or “Star Trek†is that it seems to have been redlined at some moment

in the mythic past and is heavily populated by people of color. They are

all, like Morpheus, grave, orotund, and articulate to the point of

prosiness, so that official exchanges in Zion put one in mind of what it

must have been like at a meeting at the Afro-American Studies department at

Harvard before Larry Summers got to it. (And no sooner has this thought

crossed one’s mind when—lo! there is Professor Cornel West himself, playing

one of the Councillors.) Morpheus, winningly laconic in the first film, here

tends to speechify, and, in a sequence that passes so far into the

mystically absurd that it is almost witty, leads the inhabitants of Zion in

a torchlit orgy, presumably meant to show the machines what humans can do

that they can’t; the humans heave and slam well-toned bodies in a giant

rave—Plato’s Retreat to the last leaping shadow. Neo and Trinity make love

while this is going on, and we can see the cable holes up and down Neo’s

back, like a fashion-forward appliqué. (Soon, everyone will want them.) No

cliché goes unresisted; there is an annoying street kid who wants Neo’s

attention, and a wise Councillor with swept-back silver hair (he is played

by Anthony Zerbe, Hal Holbrook presumably having been unavailable) who

twinkles benignly and creases up his eyes as he wanders the city at night by

Neo’s side. Smiles gather at the corner of his mouth. He’s that kind of

wise.

More damagingly, once Zion has been realized and mundanely inhabited, most

of the magic disappears from the fable; it becomes a cartoon battle between

more or less equally opposed forces, and the sense of a desperately uneven

contest between man and machine is gone. The Matrix, far from being a

rigorously imposed program, turns out to be as porous as good old-fashioned

reality, letting in all kinds of James Bond villains. (They are explained as

defunct programs that refused to die, but they seem more like character

ideas that refused to be edited.) Lambert Wilson appears as a sort of

digital Dominique de Villepin—even virtual Frenchmen are now amoral, the

mark of Cain imprinted on their foreheads, so to speak, like a spot of

chocolate mousse. He is called the Merovingian (“Holy Blood, Holy Grailâ€

having apparently been added to the reading list) and announces that “choice

is an illusion created between zose wis power and zose wisout†as he

constructs a virtual dessert with which he inflames the passion of a virtual

woman. The stunning Monica Bellucci appears as his wife, who sells out his

secrets in exchange for a remarkably chaste kiss from Neo, while Trinity

looks on, smoldering like Betty in an “Archie†comic. (But then Monica is

Italian, a member of the coalition of the willing.) Then, there are his twin

dreadlocked henchmen, dressed entirely in white, who have all the smirking

conviction of Siegfried and Roy. Even the action sequences, which must have

been quite hard to make, remind one of those in the later Bond films;

interesting to describe, they are so unbound by any rules except the rule of

Now He’ll Jump Off That Fast-Moving Thing Onto the Next Fast-Moving Thing

that they are tedious to watch. A long freeway sequence has the buzzing

predictability of the video game it will doubtless become. In the first

film, the rules of reality were bendable, and that was what gave the action

its surprises; in the new one there are hardly any rules at all. The idea of

a fight between Neo and a hundred identical evil “agents†sounds cool but is

unintentionally comic. Dressed in identical black suits and ties, like the

staff of MCA in the Lew Wasserman era (is that why they’re called agents?),

they simultaneously rush Neo and leap on him in a giant scrum; it’s like

watching a football team made up of ten-year-olds attempt to tackle Bronko

Nagurski—you know he’s going to rise up and shake them off. Neo has become a

superhuman power within the Matrix and nothing threatens him. He fights the

identical agents for fifteen minutes, practically yawning while he does, and

then flies away, and you wonder—why didn’t he fly away to start with? As he

chops and jabs at his enemies, there isn’t the slightest doubt about the

outcome, and Keanu Reeves seems merely preoccupied, as though ready to get

on his cell phone for a few sage words with Slavoj Zizek. There are a few

arresting moments at the conclusion when Neo meets the architect of the

Matrix. But by then the spectacle has swept right over the speculation,

leaving a lot of vinyl and rubber shreds on the incoming tide.

For anyone who was transfixed by the first movie, watching the new one is a

little like being unplugged from the Matrix: What was I experiencing all

that time? Could it have been . . . all a dream? A reassuring viewing of the

old movie suggests that its appeal had less to do with its accessories than

with its premise. Could it be that what you took to be your life was merely

piped into your brain like experiential Muzak? The question casts a spell

even when the spell casters turn out to be more merchandisers than magi.

Long before the first “Matrix†was released, of course, there was a lot of

fictional life in the idea that life is a fiction. The finest of American

speculators, Philip K. Dick, whose writing has served as the basis of some

of the more ambitious science-fiction movies of the past couple of decades

(“Blade Runner,†“Total Recall,†“Minority Reportâ€), was preoccupied with

two questions: how do we know that a robot doesn’t have consciousness, and

how do we know that we can trust our own memories and perceptions? “Blade

Runner†dramatized the first of these two problems, and “The Matrix†was an

extremely and probably self-consciously Dickian dramatization of the second.

In one of Dick’s most famous novels, for instance, “The Three Stigmata of

Palmer Erdrich,†a colony of earth-men on Mars, trapped in a miserable life,

take an illegal drug that transports them into “Perky Pat Layoutsâ€â€”miniature

Ken and Barbie doll houses, where they live out their lives in an idealized

Southern California. Like Poe, Dick took the science of his time, gave it a

paranoid twist, and then became truly paranoid himself. In a long,

half-crazy book called “Valis,†he proposed that the world we live in is a

weird scramble of information, that a wicked empire has produced thousands

of years of fake history, and that the fabric of reality is being ripped by

a battle between good and evil. The Dick scholar Erik Davis points out that,

in a sequel to “Valis,†Dick even used the term “matrix†in something like a

Wachowskian context.

In the academy, too, the age-old topic of radical doubt has acquired renewed

life in recent years. In fact, what’s often called the “brain-in-the-vat

problem†has practically become its own academic discipline. The philosopher

Daniel Dennett invoked it to probe the paradoxes of identity. Robert Nozick,

famous as a theorist of the minimal state, used it to ask whether you would

agree to plug into an “experience machine†that would give you any

experience you desired—writing a great book, making a friend—even though you

’d really just be floating in a vat with electrodes attached to your brain.

Nozick’s perhaps too hasty assumption was that you wouldn’t want to plug in.

His point was that usually something has to happen in the world, not just in

our heads, for our desires to be satisfied. The guerrilla warriors in “The

Matrix,†confirming the point, are persuaded that the Matrix is wrong

because it isn’t “real,†and we intuitively side with them. Yet, unlike

Nozick, we also recognize that it might be a lot more comfortable to remain

within the virtual universe. That’s the decision made by a turncoat among

the guerrillas, Cypher. (Agents of the “machine world†seal the pact with

him over dinner at a posh restaurant: “I know this steak doesn’t exist,â€

Cypher tells them, enjoying every calorie-free bite. “I know that when I put

it in my mouth the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and

delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss.â€)

A key feature of “The Matrix†is that all those brains are wired

together—that they really can interact with one another. And it was,

improbably, the Harvard philosopher and mathematician Hilary Putnam who, a

couple of decades back, proposed the essential Matrixian setup: a bunch of

brains in a vat hooked up to a machine that was “programmed to give [them]

all a collective hallucination, rather than a number of separate unrelated

hallucinations.†Putnam used his Matrix to make a tricky argument about

meaning: since words mean what they normally refer to within a community, a

member of the vatted-brain community might be telling the truth if it said

it was looking at a tree, or, for that matter, at Monica Bellucci. That’s

because the brains in that vat aren’t really speaking our language. What

they are speaking, he said, is “vat-English,†because by “a tree†they don’t

mean a tree; they mean, roughly, a tree image. Presumably, by “Monica

Bellucci†they mean “the image of Monica Bellucci in ‘Malèna,’†rather than

the image of Monica Bellucci in “Matrix Reloaded,†brains-in-vats having

taste and large DVD collections.

Like most thought experiments, the brain-in-the-vat scenario was intended to

sharpen our intuitions. But recurrent philosophical examples tend to have a

little symbolic halo around them, a touch of their time—those angels dancing

on the head of a pin were dancing to a thirteenth-century rhythm. The fact

that the brain-in-a-vat literature has grown so abundant, the vat so vast,

suggests that it has a grip on our imagination as a story in itself.

And there, in retrospect, might lie the secret of the first “Matrixâ€: beyond

the balletic violence, beyond the cool stunts, the idea that the world we

live in isn’t real is one that speaks right now to a general condition. For

the curious thing about the movie was that everybody could grasp the basic

setup instantly. Whether it occurs in cult science fiction or academic

philosophy, we seem to be fascinated by the possibility that our world might

not exist. We’re not strangers to the feeling that, for much of our lives,

we might just as well be brains-in-vats, floating in an amniotic fluid of

simulations. It doesn’t just strike us as plausibly weird. It strikes us as

weirdly plausible.

When, in the first film, Neo sees the Matrix for what it is, a stream of

green glowing digits, and thus is able to stop bullets by looking at them,

the moment of vision is not simply liberating. It is also spooky and, in a

Dickian way, chilling. This moment is the opposite of the equivalent scene

in “Star Wars,†a quarter century ago, when Luke Skywalker refuses to wear

the helmet that will put him in contact with his targeting machinery, and

decides instead to bliss out and trust the Force, the benevolent vital

energy of the universe. Neo’s epiphany is the reverse: the world around him

is a cascade of cold digital algorithms, unfeeling and lifeless. His charge

is not to turn on and tune in but to turn off and tune out.

This moment of discovery—that the world is not merely evil but fake—has

become a familiar turn in American entertainment. (“The Truman Show†does it

with stage sets, but the virtual-reality versions are played out in “Dark

City†and “eXistenZ†and, especially, the fine, frightening film noir “The

Thirteenth Floor,†in which the hero drives to the edge of Los Angeles and

discovers that the landscape beyond is made of the glowing green lines and

honeycombs of a computer graphic—that he has been living his life within

someone else’s program.) Even if we don’t remotely buy the notion that

reality has been drowned by its simulations, we accept it as the

melodramatic expression of a kind of truth. The Grand Guignol is possible

only because the Petit Guignol exists.

There are so many brains in vats around, in fact, that we need to remind

ourselves why we don’t want to be one. In a long article on the first

“Matrix†film, the Princeton philosopher James Pryor posed the question

“What’s so bad about living in the Matrix?,†and, after sorting through some

possible answers, he concluded that the real problem probably has to do with

freedom, or the lack of it. “If your ambitions in the Matrix are relatively

small-scale, like opening a restaurant or becoming a famous actor, then you

may very well be able to achieve them,†Pryor says. “But if your ambitions

are larger—e.g., introducing some long-term social change—then whatever

progress you make toward that goal will be wiped out when the simulation

gets reset. . . . One thing we place a lot of value on is being in charge of

our own lives, not being someone else’s slave or plaything. We want to be

politically free.â€

Here’s where the first “Matrix†pushed beyond the fun of seeing a richly

painted dystopia. Although the movie was made in 1999, its strength as a

metaphor has only increased in the years since. The monopolization of

information by vast corporations; the substitution of an agreed-on fiction,

imposed from above, for anything that corresponds to our own reality; the

sense that we have lost control not only of our fate but of our small sense

of what’s real—all these things can seem part of ordinary life now. (“More

Like ‘The Matrix’ Every Day†was the title of a recent political column by

Farai Chideya.) In a mood of Dickian paranoia, one can even start to wonder

whether the language we hear constantly on television and talk radio (“the

war on terror,†“homeland security,†etc.) is a sort of vat-English—a

language from which all earthly reference has been bled away.This isn’t to

say that any of us yet exist within an entirely fictive universe created by

the forces of evil for the purpose of deluding a benumbed population—not

unless you work for Fox News, anyway. But we know what it’s like to be

captive to representations of the world that have, well, a faintly greenish

cast.

Especially in view of the conventionality of the second film, it’s clear

that the first film struck so deep not because it showed us a new world but

because it reminded us of this one, and dramatized a simple, memorable

choice between the plugged and the unplugged life. It reminded us that the

idea of free lives is inseparable from the idea of the real thing.

Apparently, we needed the reminder. “Free your mind!,†the sixties-ish

slogan of the new film, is too ambitious to be convincing, and betrays the

darkness that made the first film so unusual. “Unplug thy neighbor!,â€

though, still sounds just possible.

[jy04]

me and my boyfriend so it too, the story was awful only thing worth it were the effects. It is not worth waiting on the lines till the hypes gone. i would recommend you guys seeing x men 2 though that was a good movie

though i did enjoy the love story, it kept my eyes glued to the screen

[thrillfire]

I haven't seen it yet, waiting to come back to NJ and see it with my bf, but most of my friends saw it and said it was enjoyable just as an eye candy with all the special effects.. not much for the story though.

Since I haven't seen X-men 2, which one do you think had the best use of special FX?

X-men 2 or Matrix 2 ?

[jy04]

i would have to say matrix had the better FX, im really not one for these types of movies, i just go b/c my bf is a huge fan of all these movies, the last movie that i could say i personally enjoyed was A MIGHTY WIND, im a huge fan of FOLK music and it was funny to see how they mocked the world of folk music

[sum12nv]

i fell asleep during the beginning of the Matrix....great special effects, but i was getting bored with all martial arts...it all starts looking the same to me after a while.

Xmen 2 was awesome...definitely prefer it over the Matrix

[notallthere]

I wrote the same thing on red plow.com

[A to Z]

>.......some things i feel didn't fit...the flow of the movie was just ok. But the action made up for it

mendez

[swimmer219]

IT SUCKED!!!

[magilicuti]

this movie was just to pump up the 3rd, not a good movie on its own by any means.

[nicbes]

I wanted to see this movie so bad but after reading the reviews I dont want to anymore.

[ninadd]

Dont listen to them, the plot was so intense and deep that my mind is still fluttered trying to figure it out - also the end takes the story into a complete u turn. There is so much going on on this one that it does get confusing to keep up with it but to say it lacks a plot is just i don't know dumb.

[magilicuti]

it doesn't lack plot, the plot is just not good. i thought it wasn't entertaining. i go to a movie to be entertained.

[Taub]

Originally posted by magilicuti

it doesn't lack plot, the plot is just not good. i thought it wasn't entertaining. i go to a movie to be entertained.

the movie focused more on the plot than anything....the 18 min car chase was just awesome. And agent smith now being in the real world(since he has become a corrupt program) has put a big twist on the plot.

Go watch the animatrix then watch the movie again, you will understand it much better......

[aim4night]

if you are into computers then it's a really good movie. i got me thinking. it could have been shorter though. overall i enjoyed it.

[magilicuti]

Originally posted by Taub

the movie focused more on the plot than anything....the 18 min car chase was just awesome. And agent smith now being in the real world(since he has become a corrupt program) has put a big twist on the plot.

Go watch the animatrix then watch the movie again, you will understand it much better......

don't the ship operators see what's happening to their crew when they are in the matrix? that's why i didn't get how smith got into the real world

yeah the movie did focus on the plot but too bad the plot sucked.

[Taub]

Originally posted by magilicuti

don't the ship operators see what's happening to their crew when they are in the matrix? that's why i didn't get how smith got into the real world

yeah the movie did focus on the plot but too bad the plot sucked.

They knew that someting wierd happend in the program...the matrix is getting corrupt and there has been a lot of wierd things happening. When angent smith got into the guy he only exists as agent smith in the matrix but in the real world is he that guy who wants to kiill neo.

Rember its the mind that goes into the matrix not the whole body...so the mind of that guy is just taken over by agent smith so in the real world he looks like he was before but its agent smith inside

yeah its a bit complicated

[magilicuti]

no, i mean when in the matrix when smith cloned himself and that guy went into the real world. they saw when they did it to neo but not when they did it to that guy

[nickymidnite]

I thought the movie was great you have to think about shit in order to get it it was a great movie and everyone should see it. the plot was great to.

[tempkid]

People who don't like 2, just don't understand the Matrix...J/k

I liked it alot, I suggest you watch the first one over again before watching #2, to get your memory updated on the matrix!!!!!

#2 was great, but it was setting up everything for part 3!!!!!!

Part 3 is going to be sick as hell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think in part 3 Morphious's proficiy will come true!!!!!

[Taub]

Originally posted by magilicuti

no, i mean when in the matrix when smith cloned himself and that guy went into the real world. they saw when they did it to neo but not when they did it to that guy

no one was there to stop from agent smith to take over that guy. There were two guys when the phone was rining and agnet smith showed up killed one i think(or one went into the phone) then there was one guy left and he didnt know anget smith could clone himself and he isnt powerful enough unlike neo to stop agent smith from taking over. Neo stopped agent smith from taking over him...no one in the real world could do anything...remember when smith was taking over morpheus, neo had to save him.

[magilicuti]

Originally posted by Taub

no one was there to stop from agent smith to take over that guy. There were two guys when the phone was rining and agnet smith showed up killed one i think(or one went into the phone) then there was one guy left and he didnt know anget smith could clone himself and he isnt powerful enough unlike neo to stop agent smith from taking over. Neo stopped agent smith from taking over him...no one in the real world could do anything...remember when smith was taking over morpheus, neo had to save him.

when things happen in the matrix the ppl in the "real world" could see it, the ship operator.

ie they saw neo was being attacked by all those smiths and what smith tried to do to him. i'm not talking about saving, i'm saying the should have seen what they did to that guy.

i'm gonna stop replying to this matrix shit, getting too dorky