From Dan Pinal <danp--massmedia.com> on 16 May 2003:

> Argh, thar be spoilers ahead.
>
>
> At 02:53 PM 5/16/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >SPOILERS
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >I noticed that the Wachowski brothers slipped from Eastern to Western
> >philosphy and brought the Matrix from 0 century Messianicism into some
> >sort of post-Decartes existentialism. "What is the nature of choice?"
> and
> >so on.
> >
> >I think the first half was a sort of "Episode II" where they felt they
> had
> >to set up the second half by establishing what everyone had to lose. It
>
> >sort of dragged aimlessly.
>
> Dragged? Did we see the same film? It seems to go from one action scene
> to
> the next.
>
> > Also, the audience is smarter than the main characters, so in
> addition
> > to being clued in to things they don't know... actually, I don't think
>
> > there's much we know that they don't know, so it's frustrating when
> they
> > float around from plot point to plot point.
>
> Actually, most audiences aren't any smarter than a popcorn bucket. I
> have
> no doubt 90% of the audience had any clue of what the Architect explains
> to
> Neo. At least American audiences anyway, after all the majority of the
> U.S. audience could not follow the plot of Back to the Future 2.

Oh. the Architect. Yeah, he probably confounded 90% of the audience, and half the people that went to see it a second time probably were trying to figure out what he was talking about.

I was mostly talking about the Oracle/Keymaker thing. They didn't deliberate, they didn't make a decision, they didn't think, they just did. "Duh... Keymaker? Ok. Uh, how do I know I can trust you? Oh, right, the movie would grind to a halt if I didn't."

> >The second half felt very rushed, and I expect there will be a
> director's
> >cut that fixes the flow and explains a bit more. I think they shot a
> lot
> >more footage than made it into the movie and had to cut quite a bit for
> time.
>
> I understand the video game has about 1 hour of extra footage filmed
> exclusively for it that adds more back story. The movie does leave you
> wondering what happens with certain characters.

Yeah, I'm looking foward to playing the game... I wonder if the director's cut will just intersperse the video game with th emovie.

> >The speech that the Architect gave was very "deep" but it happened all
> at
> >once. You didn't have a chance to absorb it and you're still trying to
> >remember what while he's speaking.
> >
> >A lot of the trailers "Give us Neo" and such seem to be from the 3rd
> movie.
> >
> >I think the Wachowski brothers planned some of the humorous moments,
> but
> >we weren't expecting a movie with humor.
> >
> >The Smith fight scene... did you notice that there were practically no
> >cuts? I did notice some of the Smiths were stunt doubles.
>
> All of the duplicates are stunt doubles, they were selected based on
> similar build and facial features, and CG used where needed, but they
> clearly missed a few spots.
>
> >Ultimately, I think it's very re-watchable, but not as much of a
> package
> >as the first movie. I expect I won't get some of the symbolism until
> I've
> >had a chance to re-watch it a few times, but a lot of it was repeated
> from
> >the first movie (a lot of Room 101's). It's more straightfoward than
> the
> >first movie. The first time I saw The Matrix I didn't really get the
> plot.
> >I had to re-watch it once or twice before all the pieces came
> together...
> >This one came together very quickly. Some things were too blatent, and
> I
> >think some of the plot contrivances too obvious.
> >
> >And finally... Are they still in the Matrix at the end? Why can NEO
> sence
> >the sentinals?
>
> Yup, they have never left the Matrix which is what the Architect
> implies. All rebels are just system anomalies that must be purged
> before
> the system can be rebooted yet again.
>
> Flawed? Sure but totally fun and well worth seeing twice. Neo's
> supersonic, faster-than-a-speeding-bullet rescue would have done far
> more
> damage than the bullet. Just suspend disbelief and enjoy.

The problem I had with the movie - and I certainly enjoyed it - was that the plot was a little thin and the characters not fleshed out enough. They didn't hide the seams well enough plotwise. It always bugs me when a big budget movie has a rushed plot becuase they obviously spent so much time on the special effects, why not devete some of that time and money to the plot?

As a writer I know when something just isn't coming together, and it's nearly impossible to figure out what will make it fall into place under pressure. Often it's a personal blind spot, and I think if someone else - the right someone else - was brought in it would've been better.

Or maybe they made half a movie to match their half a game?

Regards,
Mark
www.marktaw.com
www.markzilla.com/ar
www.prosoundreview.com


The FREE service that prevents junk email http://www.mailshell.com