magilicuti Posted May 15 Report Share Posted May 15 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeathens Posted May 15 Report Share Posted May 15 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magilicuti Posted May 15 Author Report Share Posted May 15 the movie doesn't even actually start till you are into it 30 minutes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santaforeal Posted May 15 Report Share Posted May 15 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njstacked2 Posted May 15 Report Share Posted May 15 Great Article for any MATRIX fan! THE UNREAL THINGby ADAM GOPNIKWhat’s wrong with the Matrix?Issue of 2003-05-19Posted 2003-05-12For 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 thisweek, it was obvious that the strange, violent science-fiction film, by thepreviously more or less unknown Wachowski brothers, had already inspiredboth 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 inNovember.) There hasn’t been anything quite like it since “2001: A SpaceOdyssey,†which had a similar mix of mysticism, solemnity, and mega-effects.Shortly after its mostly unheralded release, in 1999, “The Matrix†became anegghead extase. The Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek’s latest work,“Welcome to the Desert of the Real,†took its title from a bit of dialoguein the film; college courses on epistemology have used “The Matrix†as achief point of reference; and there are at least three books devoted toteasing out its meanings. (“Taking the Red Pill: Science, Philosophy andReligion in ‘The Matrix’†is a typical title.) If the French philosopherJean Baudrillard, whose books—“The Gulf War Did Not Take Place†isone—popularized the view that reality itself has become a simulation, hasnot yet embraced the film it may be because he is thinking of suing for ascreen credit. (The “desert of the real†line came from him.) The movie, itseemed, dramatized a host of doubts and fears and fascinations, some half asold 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 pastfour years—depended on a neatly knotted marriage between a spectacle and aspeculation. The spectacle has by now become part of the common language ofaction movies: the amazing “balletic†fight scenes and the slow-motionaerial display of destruction. The speculation, more peculiar, and even, inits way, esoteric, is that reality is a fiction, programmed into the headsof 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 ageneric office building in a present-day, Chicago-like metropolis.Revelation arrives when he’s recruited by a mysterious guerrilla figurenamed Morpheus, played by Laurence Fishburne with a baritone aplomb worthyof Orson Welles. Morpheus offers Neo a choice between two pills, one blueand one red: “You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in yourbed 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 andwakes up as he really is: a comatose body in a cocoon, his brain penetratedby a cable that inserts the Matrix, an interactive virtual-reality program,directly into his consciousness. All the people he has ever known, herealizes, are recumbent in incubators, stacks of identical clear pods, piledin high towers; the cocooned sleepers have the simulation piped into theirheads by the machines as music is piped into headphones. What they take tobe experiences is simply the effect of brain impulses interacting with thevirtual-reality program. Guerrilla warriors who have been unplugged from theMatrix survive in an underground city called Zion, and travel in hovercraftto 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 throughthe Matrix and help free mankind. The first film, which told of Neo’seducation by Morpheus and his pursuit of the awesomely cute andMatrix-defying Trinity (the rubber-suited Carrie-Anne Moss), ends with Neoseeing the Matrix for what it is: a row of green digits, which he haslearned to alter as easily as a skilled player can alter the levels of avideo game.What made the spectacle work was the ingenuity and the attention to detailwith which it was rendered. The faintly greenish cast and the curioussterility 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 movieshave had so much faith in their own mythology. And the actors rose to it,Laurence Fishburne managing to anchor the whole thing in a grandiloquenttheatricality. Even Keanu Reeves, bless him, played his part with astolidity that made him the only possible hero of the film, so slow in hisreactions that he seemed perfect for virtual reality, his expressionschanging with the finger-drumming time lag of a digital image loadingonline.If it was the spectacle that made the movie work, though, it was thespeculations that made it last in people’s heads. It spoke to an oldnightmare. The basic conceit of “The Matrixâ€â€”the notion that the materialworld is a malevolent delusion, designed by the forces of evil with thepurpose of keeping people in a state of slavery, has a history. It is mostfamous as the belief for which the medieval Christian sect known as theCathars fought and died, and in great numbers, too. The Cathars were surethat the material world was a phantasm created by Satan, and that Jesus ofNazareth—their Neo—had shown mankind a way beyond that matrix by standingoutside 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 notunusual to take up a sword and die for a belief. It is unusual to take up asword to die for the belief that swords do not exist.The Cathars, like the heroes of “The Matrix,†had an especially handyrationale for violence: if it ain’t real, it can’t really bleed. One reasonthat the violence in “The Matrixâ€â€”those floating fistfights, theannihilation of entire squads of soldiers by cartwheeling guerrillas—canfairly be called balletic is that, according to the rules of the movie, whatis being destroyed is not real in the first place: the action has the safetyof play and the excitement of the apocalyptic. Of course, the destruction ofa blank, featureless, mirrored skyscraper by a helicopter, and the massacreof the soldiers who protect it, has a different resonance now than it did in1999. The notion that some human beings are not really human but, rather,mere slaves, nonhuman ciphers, and therefore expendable, is exactly thevision of the revolutionary hero—and also of the mass terrorist. The Matrixis where all violent fanatics insist that they are living, even when theyare not.It would have been nice if some of that complexity, or any complexity, hadmade 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 acampy conventional comic-book movie, and in places a ludicrously campyconventional 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 andthinning material. The thing that made the Matrix so creepy—the idea of asleeping human population with a secondary life in a simulated world—isbarely referred to in the new movie; in fact, if you hadn’t seen the firstfilm, not just the action but the basic premise would be pretty muchunintelligible. The first forty-five minutes—set mainly in Zion, that humancity buried deep in the earth—are particularly excruciating. Zion seems tobe modelled on the parking garage of a giant indoor mall, with nested levelsclustered around an atrium. Like every good-guy citadel in everyscience-fiction movie ever made, Zion is peopled by stern-jawed uniformedmen 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 andsurprisingly powerful women whose eyes moisten but don’t overflow as theywatch the men prepare to go off to war. Everybody wears earth tones andburlap and silk, and there are craggy perches from which speeches can bemade while the courageous citizens hold torches. (The stuccoed, soft-contourinteriors of Zion look like the most interesting fusion restaurant in SantaFe.)The only thing setting Zion apart from the good-guy planets in “The PhantomMenace†or “Star Trek†is that it seems to have been redlined at some momentin the mythic past and is heavily populated by people of color. They areall, like Morpheus, grave, orotund, and articulate to the point ofprosiness, so that official exchanges in Zion put one in mind of what itmust have been like at a meeting at the Afro-American Studies department atHarvard before Larry Summers got to it. (And no sooner has this thoughtcrossed one’s mind when—lo! there is Professor Cornel West himself, playingone of the Councillors.) Morpheus, winningly laconic in the first film, heretends to speechify, and, in a sequence that passes so far into themystically absurd that it is almost witty, leads the inhabitants of Zion ina torchlit orgy, presumably meant to show the machines what humans can dothat they can’t; the humans heave and slam well-toned bodies in a giantrave—Plato’s Retreat to the last leaping shadow. Neo and Trinity make lovewhile this is going on, and we can see the cable holes up and down Neo’sback, like a fashion-forward appliqué. (Soon, everyone will want them.) Nocliché goes unresisted; there is an annoying street kid who wants Neo’sattention, and a wise Councillor with swept-back silver hair (he is playedby Anthony Zerbe, Hal Holbrook presumably having been unavailable) whotwinkles benignly and creases up his eyes as he wanders the city at night byNeo’s side. Smiles gather at the corner of his mouth. He’s that kind ofwise.More damagingly, once Zion has been realized and mundanely inhabited, mostof the magic disappears from the fable; it becomes a cartoon battle betweenmore or less equally opposed forces, and the sense of a desperately unevencontest between man and machine is gone. The Matrix, far from being arigorously imposed program, turns out to be as porous as good old-fashionedreality, letting in all kinds of James Bond villains. (They are explained asdefunct programs that refused to die, but they seem more like characterideas that refused to be edited.) Lambert Wilson appears as a sort ofdigital Dominique de Villepin—even virtual Frenchmen are now amoral, themark of Cain imprinted on their foreheads, so to speak, like a spot ofchocolate mousse. He is called the Merovingian (“Holy Blood, Holy Grailâ€having apparently been added to the reading list) and announces that “choiceis an illusion created between zose wis power and zose wisout†as heconstructs a virtual dessert with which he inflames the passion of a virtualwoman. The stunning Monica Bellucci appears as his wife, who sells out hissecrets in exchange for a remarkably chaste kiss from Neo, while Trinitylooks on, smoldering like Betty in an “Archie†comic. (But then Monica isItalian, a member of the coalition of the willing.) Then, there are his twindreadlocked henchmen, dressed entirely in white, who have all the smirkingconviction of Siegfried and Roy. Even the action sequences, which must havebeen 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 ofNow He’ll Jump Off That Fast-Moving Thing Onto the Next Fast-Moving Thingthat they are tedious to watch. A long freeway sequence has the buzzingpredictability of the video game it will doubtless become. In the firstfilm, the rules of reality were bendable, and that was what gave the actionits surprises; in the new one there are hardly any rules at all. The idea ofa fight between Neo and a hundred identical evil “agents†sounds cool but isunintentionally comic. Dressed in identical black suits and ties, like thestaff 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 likewatching a football team made up of ten-year-olds attempt to tackle BronkoNagurski—you know he’s going to rise up and shake them off. Neo has become asuperhuman power within the Matrix and nothing threatens him. He fights theidentical agents for fifteen minutes, practically yawning while he does, andthen flies away, and you wonder—why didn’t he fly away to start with? As hechops and jabs at his enemies, there isn’t the slightest doubt about theoutcome, and Keanu Reeves seems merely preoccupied, as though ready to geton his cell phone for a few sage words with Slavoj Zizek. There are a fewarresting moments at the conclusion when Neo meets the architect of theMatrix. 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 alittle like being unplugged from the Matrix: What was I experiencing allthat time? Could it have been . . . all a dream? A reassuring viewing of theold movie suggests that its appeal had less to do with its accessories thanwith its premise. Could it be that what you took to be your life was merelypiped into your brain like experiential Muzak? The question casts a spelleven 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 offictional life in the idea that life is a fiction. The finest of Americanspeculators, Philip K. Dick, whose writing has served as the basis of someof the more ambitious science-fiction movies of the past couple of decades(“Blade Runner,†“Total Recall,†“Minority Reportâ€), was preoccupied withtwo questions: how do we know that a robot doesn’t have consciousness, andhow do we know that we can trust our own memories and perceptions? “BladeRunner†dramatized the first of these two problems, and “The Matrix†was anextremely and probably self-consciously Dickian dramatization of the second.In one of Dick’s most famous novels, for instance, “The Three Stigmata ofPalmer 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€”miniatureKen and Barbie doll houses, where they live out their lives in an idealizedSouthern California. Like Poe, Dick took the science of his time, gave it aparanoid twist, and then became truly paranoid himself. In a long,half-crazy book called “Valis,†he proposed that the world we live in is aweird scramble of information, that a wicked empire has produced thousandsof years of fake history, and that the fabric of reality is being ripped bya 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 aWachowskian context.In the academy, too, the age-old topic of radical doubt has acquired renewedlife in recent years. In fact, what’s often called the “brain-in-the-vatproblem†has practically become its own academic discipline. The philosopherDaniel 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 wouldagree to plug into an “experience machine†that would give you anyexperience 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 inour heads, for our desires to be satisfied. The guerrilla warriors in “TheMatrix,†confirming the point, are persuaded that the Matrix is wrongbecause it isn’t “real,†and we intuitively side with them. Yet, unlikeNozick, we also recognize that it might be a lot more comfortable to remainwithin the virtual universe. That’s the decision made by a turncoat amongthe guerrillas, Cypher. (Agents of the “machine world†seal the pact withhim 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 putit in my mouth the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy anddelicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss.â€)A key feature of “The Matrix†is that all those brains are wiredtogether—that they really can interact with one another. And it was,improbably, the Harvard philosopher and mathematician Hilary Putnam who, acouple of decades back, proposed the essential Matrixian setup: a bunch ofbrains in a vat hooked up to a machine that was “programmed to give [them]all a collective hallucination, rather than a number of separate unrelatedhallucinations.†Putnam used his Matrix to make a tricky argument aboutmeaning: since words mean what they normally refer to within a community, amember of the vatted-brain community might be telling the truth if it saidit was looking at a tree, or, for that matter, at Monica Bellucci. That’sbecause the brains in that vat aren’t really speaking our language. Whatthey are speaking, he said, is “vat-English,†because by “a tree†they don’tmean a tree; they mean, roughly, a tree image. Presumably, by “MonicaBellucci†they mean “the image of Monica Bellucci in ‘Malèna,’†rather thanthe image of Monica Bellucci in “Matrix Reloaded,†brains-in-vats havingtaste and large DVD collections.Like most thought experiments, the brain-in-the-vat scenario was intended tosharpen our intuitions. But recurrent philosophical examples tend to have alittle symbolic halo around them, a touch of their time—those angels dancingon the head of a pin were dancing to a thirteenth-century rhythm. The factthat 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€: beyondthe balletic violence, beyond the cool stunts, the idea that the world welive in isn’t real is one that speaks right now to a general condition. Forthe curious thing about the movie was that everybody could grasp the basicsetup instantly. Whether it occurs in cult science fiction or academicphilosophy, we seem to be fascinated by the possibility that our world mightnot 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 ofsimulations. It doesn’t just strike us as plausibly weird. It strikes us asweirdly plausible.When, in the first film, Neo sees the Matrix for what it is, a stream ofgreen 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 aDickian way, chilling. This moment is the opposite of the equivalent scenein “Star Wars,†a quarter century ago, when Luke Skywalker refuses to wearthe helmet that will put him in contact with his targeting machinery, anddecides instead to bliss out and trust the Force, the benevolent vitalenergy of the universe. Neo’s epiphany is the reverse: the world around himis a cascade of cold digital algorithms, unfeeling and lifeless. His chargeis 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—hasbecome a familiar turn in American entertainment. (“The Truman Show†does itwith stage sets, but the virtual-reality versions are played out in “DarkCity†and “eXistenZ†and, especially, the fine, frightening film noir “TheThirteenth Floor,†in which the hero drives to the edge of Los Angeles anddiscovers that the landscape beyond is made of the glowing green lines andhoneycombs of a computer graphic—that he has been living his life withinsomeone else’s program.) Even if we don’t remotely buy the notion thatreality has been drowned by its simulations, we accept it as themelodramatic expression of a kind of truth. The Grand Guignol is possibleonly because the Petit Guignol exists.There are so many brains in vats around, in fact, that we need to remindourselves 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 somepossible answers, he concluded that the real problem probably has to do withfreedom, or the lack of it. “If your ambitions in the Matrix are relativelysmall-scale, like opening a restaurant or becoming a famous actor, then youmay very well be able to achieve them,†Pryor says. “But if your ambitionsare larger—e.g., introducing some long-term social change—then whateverprogress you make toward that goal will be wiped out when the simulationgets reset. . . . One thing we place a lot of value on is being in charge ofour own lives, not being someone else’s slave or plaything. We want to bepolitically free.â€Here’s where the first “Matrix†pushed beyond the fun of seeing a richlypainted dystopia. Although the movie was made in 1999, its strength as ametaphor has only increased in the years since. The monopolization ofinformation by vast corporations; the substitution of an agreed-on fiction,imposed from above, for anything that corresponds to our own reality; thesense that we have lost control not only of our fate but of our small senseof what’s real—all these things can seem part of ordinary life now. (“MoreLike ‘The Matrix’ Every Day†was the title of a recent political column byFarai Chideya.) In a mood of Dickian paranoia, one can even start to wonderwhether the language we hear constantly on television and talk radio (“thewar on terror,†“homeland security,†etc.) is a sort of vat-English—alanguage from which all earthly reference has been bled away.This isn’t tosay that any of us yet exist within an entirely fictive universe created bythe forces of evil for the purpose of deluding a benumbed population—notunless you work for Fox News, anyway. But we know what it’s like to becaptive to representations of the world that have, well, a faintly greenishcast.Especially in view of the conventionality of the second film, it’s clearthat the first film struck so deep not because it showed us a new world butbecause it reminded us of this one, and dramatized a simple, memorablechoice between the plugged and the unplugged life. It reminded us that theidea of free lives is inseparable from the idea of the real thing.Apparently, we needed the reminder. “Free your mind!,†the sixties-ishslogan of the new film, is too ambitious to be convincing, and betrays thedarkness that made the first film so unusual. “Unplug thy neighbor!,â€though, still sounds just possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jy04 Posted May 15 Report Share Posted May 15 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 moviethough i did enjoy the love story, it kept my eyes glued to the screen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrillfire Posted May 15 Report Share Posted May 15 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 ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jy04 Posted May 15 Report Share Posted May 15 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sum12nv Posted May 15 Report Share Posted May 15 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notallthere Posted May 15 Report Share Posted May 15 I wrote the same thing on red plow.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A to Z Posted May 15 Report Share Posted May 15 >.......some things i feel didn't fit...the flow of the movie was just ok. But the action made up for it mendez Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swimmer219 Posted May 16 Report Share Posted May 16 IT SUCKED!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magilicuti Posted May 16 Author Report Share Posted May 16 this movie was just to pump up the 3rd, not a good movie on its own by any means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicbes Posted May 16 Report Share Posted May 16 I wanted to see this movie so bad but after reading the reviews I dont want to anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninadd Posted May 17 Report Share Posted May 17 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magilicuti Posted May 17 Author Report Share Posted May 17 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taub Posted May 17 Report Share Posted May 17 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...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aim4night Posted May 17 Report Share Posted May 17 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magilicuti Posted May 17 Author Report Share Posted May 17 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 worldyeah the movie did focus on the plot but too bad the plot sucked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taub Posted May 17 Report Share Posted May 17 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 worldyeah 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 insideyeah its a bit complicated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magilicuti Posted May 17 Author Report Share Posted May 17 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickymidnite Posted May 17 Report Share Posted May 17 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tempkid Posted May 17 Report Share Posted May 17 People who don't like 2, just don't understand the Matrix...J/kI 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!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taub Posted May 17 Report Share Posted May 17 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magilicuti Posted May 17 Author Report Share Posted May 17 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.