The world was so blown away by the compelling way of portraying the allegory of the cave in the first movie, they seemed to completely forget to consider what the subsequent movies would be about. It seemed everyone was set on having their mind blown, that when the second and third movie continued the plot on the basis set in the first movie, it's boring.
I don't get that.
if you are doing the conscious, "im not giving you answers because i'm clever" thing, then the pieces need to be there for you to put together. When they don't do that, it's called "sloppy writing"
I think it's extremely invalid to counter a proposal that it's a choice not to engage in certain topics by saying it has to be sloppy writing, since it's not readily understood. There are so many movies that are ambiguous without enough information. You say it's sloppy writing to not include all necessary information, but I think that's crap. To me, it points to the human mind wishing to have enough information to figure something out, lamenting things it can't figure out as a short-coming on the other part.
Some of the best works within these story-telling media include completely open ends. The Last of Us and Inception come to mind, and just look at the way people desperately seek to topple all other theories in favor of their own, with the crux of them normally being yelling at the creator to get them to reveal their original intent.
Explore the themes, there are a lot more clues that you seem to think there is. There's so much going on in these movies that aren't fully explored, and that do not have enough information to not be ubiquitously interpreted. This is actually something that's at the core of most pieces of art, be it paintings or music. It means different things to different people, and the original intent is not relevant. It's sharing these experiences we have that can deepen our minds, as a collective Rorschach test wherein we interpret our own interpretations.
I think it's rather insipid to put it like you do.
additionally, i find the following shit in that flick to be maddening:
1. The Merovingian "Hell" Scene is completely pointless. the action is brief, unremarkable and, the entire interaction does absolutely nothing to drive the plot.
2. Neo's real-world abilities are not explored at all.
2. Trinity's death serves no purpose. Given that the driving motivator of the previous film was ensuring her survival, the death seems cheap, not well thought out, and simply there because they had nothing to do with her at the end.
1. L'ange sans ailes? "Holy shit, it's wingless". "My little judas". C'mon. Aside from the small pieces of interesting dialogue, the scene tells me so much about the human condition. It underlines both Smith's and The Architect's points. Smith hates us, because we're reckless and think otherwise. The Architect was amazed that The Paradise Matrix didn't work. There are so many things about the human condition that's underlined by the theme of the scene. You're telling something by the set pieces, rather than through dialog. It's an unsettling scene in many ways, but that's the point.
2. Why does it have to?
3. I think it servedreat purpose. Neo has to let go. In the second movie, he refuses, and seems to be completely insane in choosing the way he does, merely to save her. In the first movie, she refuses. Now they have to let go. You point it out yourself. You say her survival was the driving motivator, and here she does. I cannot see anything pointless about that.
Please tell me more about that, I've always wanted to watch the Matrix trilogy in HD. Is there a more recent re-release? If so, did it came out in Europe, or just US? Thanks.
Should be readily available. I bought it in Norway like four years ago.
