The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

Richard Hernandez13 said:The Baroque standard of beauty essentially demands certain "excesses." 😉

More is better than less. 😁

Most people would probably lose their minds over Carrie-Anne Moss.

It actually brings to mind a scene from the crybaby game.

maristella69 said:She’s hot in Memento—actually, she's gorgeous. She has such unique features, which she shows off in all her other films too, except for The Matrix (I suspect she had to drop weight incredibly fast just to squeeze into that tight outfit, which is probably why she looked a bit off there).

Carrie-Anne Moss looks great in the whole first movie. Though, considering how much better she looks in that one compared to the sequel, I might be wrong.

My hair practically stands on end when someone claims Monica Bellucci is a total knockout! Maybe she was once (like in Little). To me, she looks a bit soft and bloated now, like she's let herself go a little (damn that Italian pasta!).

HA! That’s just MORE PROOF that Monica is absolutely AMAZING, because you are clearly JEALOUS of her! SO THERE!

casualotter21 said:1. If you walked into this theater expecting some profound answer to those deep-seated needs we all have—you know, that desperate urge to define our own existence because we're stuck in the soul-crushing void of the daily grind and searching for meaning—then honestly, the only thing you’re going to take away from this movie are the exact same conclusions I’ve seen most people draw in this thread: religious nonsense, mindless copying of other people's "reviews," and just spitting on whatever it is you don't understand.
...

6. Since we are all subjective beings, we all have the right to our own perception, to like or dislike what's served up to us, and to analyze it however we want; frankly, trying to debate it doesn't make much sense if you actually stop to think about it, because then we drift into the realm of philosophy, which the Hollywood machine is likely incapable of sustaining...

So, by your logic, there's no point in discussing movies at all—or "art," if we're being fancy—because you can always hide behind the argument of subjectivity, right? But let's be real: there are certain elements that can be observed objectively, specifically regarding how this entire story is paced and told. And that is where the true disappointment lies.
If the same creative minds worked on all three installments, why on earth is there such a massive shift in approach? Why would explaining "revolutionary" ideas in The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions require two-thirds of Reloaded and four-fifths of The Matrix Revolutions to be nothing but ultra-mega-zen-cool action sequences... interrupted by these brief, pseudo-philosophical dialogues? In the whole first movie, we had a narrative that actually functioned on the level of the real world versus the virtual world; the symbolism was multi-layered, and the analogies to our "modern" society were glaringly obvious... it left it up to the viewer to "piece together" the story based on their own sensibilities, which provides plenty of room for that subjective difference you're talking about.
But then, in parts 2 and 3, we're suddenly bombarded with lasers, commanders, and explosions... we're watching some Defense Council and a battle between completely polarized Good Guys and Bad Guys (honestly, all that was missing was Jar Jar Binks 😁). Morpheus goes from being one of the central pillars of the story to being completely sidelined, and characters introduced in The Matrix Reloaded—like The Merovingian, Persephone, the Keymaker, and The Twins—get almost zero breathing room in The Matrix Revolutions. And what was the point of that forced romance between Morpheus and Niobe anyway!? Some of these scenes are just straight-up pathetic: Neo, blinded, with Trinity dying in his arms (a blatant rip-off of the ending of John Woo's masterpiece, The Killer), the Machines addressing Neo through that creepy "projection" with that terrifyingly deep voice... and finally, that sunny landscape featuring a small Indian woman, a Japanese man, and an African-American woman... all they needed was to belt out "Give Peace a Chance" while they sat there. 🙄

So, you have these machines talking to Neo through that one "projection" thing, using that super creepy, deep voice... and then it just ends with this bright, sunny landscape featuring a small Indian woman, a Japanese man, and an African-American woman... I mean, honestly, all they needed was "Give Peace a Chance" playing in the background to wrap it all up!

😁

Oh, totally!😁 👍

The concept behind The Matrix is actually quite fascinating.
However, I can't help but feel that The Matrix Revolutions leans a bit too heavily into being flashy and overproduced.

Honestly, if you're looking for something truly compelling, why not give "Equilibrium" a watch?

Michelle Gonzalez said:The Matrix concept is pretty cool.
but The Matrix Revolutions is just way too cheesy...

man, you guys gotta watch "Equilibrium"

Auuu, are you for real? Equilibrium? I mean, Christian Bale is great, but that movie can't even come close to holding its own against the whole first movie. The other two are basically a different genre anyway. 😁

Also, what you called cheesy, I thought wasn't big enough. If they're gonna go on a rampage through the city, they might as well tear down a few hundred skyscrapers while they're at it...

casualotter21 said:Since we say "I believe" and "I don't believe" so much, I can't help but wonder if there's some kind of religious undertone to those phrases. It's funny how often we use them!

No way, The Matrix has absolutely nothing to do with religion...

Everyone needs to go out and find some kind of purpose in life. If you don't have one, you might as well just go hang out with the cows in a pasture.
Criticizing The Matrix isn't just about trashing things you don't get. You haven't even made a single point that actually supports the movie—I'm honestly just trying to figure out if you even understood what it was all about.

If you’re out here expecting "something more," you probably don't even have the drive to actually get to know yourself, let alone anyone else beyond their surface-level look and a quick first impression.

This makes zero sense. People are out here complaining about stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with how the movie actually looks.

The whole thing takes place across two different virtual realities.

Ahaha... so you missed the point. There’s only one reality—the virtual one inside The Matrix (though honestly, having two would have been way cooler). That whole endless loop they talk about? It isn't meant to create progress through constant restarts; it's designed to control the anomaly. First, they isolate everyone who rejected the matrix into one single spot, Zion. Then, they just wipe out Zion—basically crushing any anomaly that refuses to play along with the system.
Even the architect doesn't have a clue why those anomalies are happening.

In the first case, he’s basically fighting for the survival of the human race. He's trying to stop everyone from slipping back into that cycle of ignorance where they don't even realize what reality actually is. By sacrificing himself, he introduces this wild new variable that isn't part of the matrix: people. He basically saves them and kicks off the era of free will, which just doesn't exist inside the matrix since everything is already pre-programmed.

Can someone help me make sense of this?

Why isn't peace included as a variable in The Matrix? Or if it isn't, why couldn't it be? Since the matrix—and all the software inside it—is capable of reprogramming itself because it’s developed this awareness of its own existence, it feels like peace should be part of that equation.

In the second case, he’s basically like an antivirus program—he's just limited by the fact that he even exists.

Like I said before, the world outside The Matrix is shown as being totally real (sadly), so that makes Neo a real person, not just some program. Honestly, the whole idea of Agent Smith crossing over into the real world is pure nonsense, which seems to be what you're basing your argument on. Software just can't control a human brain—it could maybe mess with electrical impulses, but software alone doesn't send those out.

If you actually stop to think about it, that analysis doesn't make much sense. We're diving straight into deep philosophy here, and honestly, I don't think Hollywood has the guts to actually back that up.

The Matrix has sparked so much debate just because of its deep philosophical roots. Honestly, if you’re a bit of a thinker, you can spend hours dissecting the ideas behind this movie.
It offers a perspective on reality that feels just as compelling as anything taught by organized religion or even Darwin.

Christian Perez10 said:Honestly, the whole concept of Agent Smith crossing over into the real world is just pure nonsense, and I feel like that's what you're basing this whole argument on. Software simply isn't capable of controlling a human brain (Bane)—it could maybe mess with electrical impulses, but the software itself doesn't send those out.

Why would you call it nonsense?
I actually thought that was one of the better ideas they introduced in >. We aren't talking about the kind of software we use on our laptops today; remember, we're dealing with science fiction here, not a technical manual for a computer scientist.

slyrider16 said:Auuu, are you actually being serious right now? Equilibrium?

Furthermore, what you dismissed as cheesy, I found to be lacking in true megalomania...

Man, that was just absolutely insane. Pure perfection.
Just kidding...

Honestly, though, that final shot felt a bit too kitschy for me. It was far too much pink for my personal taste.

slyrider16 said:Plus, what you thought was cheesy, I actually felt wasn't quite big enough. If they were going to go on a rampage through the city, they might as well have leveled a few hundred skyscrapers while they were at it...

Yeah, I totally agree, I felt that gap too. By all rights, that final showdown should have been an absolute, total blowout if we're following standard action movie logic.
Honestly, I found Shore's segment in The Matrix Reloaded with the clones way more gripping. Here, it feels like every single shot was weighed down by this heavy, "monumental" vibe that just slowed everything down.

Michelle Gonzalez said:seriously guys, you have to watch "Equilibrium"

Honestly, because of movies like Equilibrium, there are moments where I almost wish The Matrix had never happened—ever since its release, we've been flooded with this endless wave of films where the protagonists just strut around in tight black leather, pulling off all those bullet-time stunts. (hmmm... I wonder if the culprit behind all that is the fact that about 90% of them were produced by Joel Silver)

kozz said:Why all this nonsense?
That was actually one of their better ideas in Reloaded. We aren't talking about modern software here; remember, this is science fiction, not actual science.

I loved The Matrix specifically because it felt grounded. There’s a massive difference between good sci-fi and just being naive, and this feels naive.

alfred stokes said:Watched it last night, UNFORTUNATELY.

What an absolute joke. Half the theater was cracking up at that pseudo-"deep" nonsense—the choices, the savior complex, just please... it was pathetic.
The scene where super-unlikable Trinity dies? Pure comedy gold. 🙂

I was there this past Saturday and the exact same thing happened. When Trinity FINALLY breathed her last, everyone stood up, let out a massive round of applause, and started shouting "Bravo!!!" People were actually tearing up, but mostly from laughing so hard. My stomach still hurts from it.

It was also hilarious when the kid goes, "But I didn't finish my training..." and his hero, that guy with the split face, dramatically pauses and says, "Neither did I."

🙂

Even The Architect doesn't actually know why these anomalies are happening.

Well, since The Architect is basically just code, it makes sense (ironically enough!) that he wouldn't grasp why anomalies pop up within a logically consistent system built on a set of axioms like The Matrix. But humans? We get it. And honestly, that’s the fundamental divide between machines and people—pure rational thought can never truly reach an ultimate truth in any logical sense.

For me, the big breakthrough was the way the original The Matrix film introduced this parallel world where anything feels possible. I always find myself thinking back to that scene where Trinity leaps from one building to another—that massive jump—followed immediately by an Agent. Looking back now, my suspension of disbelief starts to fray a little; you get these tiny crumbs of doubt that maybe it was all a bit cheesy or over-the-top. Then there's that phone scene... you almost want to walk away, but then you realize what's actually happening, especially with those shots of Neo where the lines between reality and dreams just blur together. Watching that first movie felt like a unique kind of mental release, something totally unparalleled. All these endless debates about Reloaded and Revolutions feel like nothing more than sheer intellectual frustration, because there isn't really much to grab onto, and the sequels themselves just don't offer that same sense of closure or payoff that the original gave us.

😉

I see you’ve realized that I haven't actually said anything regarding my own take on the ideas presented in the movie, specifically its core essence...

...the visual identity of the film isn't what's being questioned here; rather, it's the viewer's sensory experience...

given that you claimed I didn't get it, well, heaven help you if you think you did...

look, perhaps I should clarify things slightly... 😁
the distinction between what exists in the film "as reality" versus "as The Matrix" doesn't necessarily imply that this "reality" is the actual physical reality we experience (though the concept of "physical" is debatable here, but for the sake of explanation...)

why wouldn't peace be included as a variable in The Matrix? ...or if it isn't, why couldn't it be. The Matrix, much like any software within it, is capable of reprogramming itself because it possesses a developed consciousness of its own existence.

see, that might be a flawed conclusion, considering Neo has already arrived at this exact same junction six or x times before, and since he decided in Reloaded to walk through a different door, they would simply revert to a state of war—destruction vs. creation, liberation vs. defeat—and slide right back into "the same cycle."

the very fact that Agent Smith entered "reality" might actually suggest that such a thing doesn't exist, or at least not in the way people currently interpret it... don't you think?

anyway, I am in complete agreement with you; all reflection is welcome, but limiting one's own thinking is precisely what I was addressing in my entire previous post, citing several comments from those who watched the film and debated the potential "ideas" being offered to us, just as we are bickering about them here...

personally, I like the film, and my own interpretation is that the original idea from the first installment was definitely a revolution that few other films will ever achieve, even though that idea sparked in human minds across the US long before The Matrix; the first part was undoubtedly a hit, and there's nothing to criticize there.

in the second (and let's say the third, even though it functions "as" one film), they delved into something that transitioned from a pure idea into entertainment, essentially offering the audience more of what people seek as substance. unfortunately, it was clumsy only in the sense that it tried to push the idea to its absolute limit, instead of falling back on the classic good vs. evil trope with noble goals and petty nonsense that we all know how that ends...

and when that doesn't happen, we start overanalyzing why things didn't turn out the way we expected...

perhaps it's simply a matter of the human need to define perfection? ...

btw, if we are currently using only 6-35% (okay, I'm exaggerating, probably closer to 10%) of our "brain capacity" (if we want to call it that), why do you think a program couldn't be "downloaded" into one of those other unused percentages?

regards

Of course it’s worth discussing; that is precisely their greatest—perhaps even their sole—merit...

Analysis is a completely different beast altogether. You either embrace it or you don't, or maybe you accept it begrudgingly or reject it outright... (I don't want to paint everything in black and white here)

A difference in approach? I would argue it is more a matter of execution. But then again, as I mentioned before, only the creators themselves can truly know (or can they?) how the concept was intended to be "exhausted"

We live in an era where it is incredibly difficult to satisfy that innate sense of emptiness found within every human being—that craving for meaning (which we expect to be served on a silver platter with all the best sides)

If the movie provides enough of a spark to make us consider a "different" perspective, then it would be only fair to view it through that lens. If we insist on viewing it strictly through our own predefined rules, forcing it into the narrow criteria of our current limitations, then yes, there are certainly technical deviations and melodrama, inconsistencies, illogical leaps, and even departures from the original...

But is everything really as bleak as it seems? 😁
Perhaps all we need is color? A sky full of rainbow hues and a beautiful sunrise breaking through this darkness and the stagnation we find ourselves in... 🙂

Hey, just dropping a little something here to kill some time and lighten the mood—here's a link about The Matrix.

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/...solutions.html

The Dude said:If they’re going to go on a tear through the city like this, they might as well take down a few hundred skyscrapers while they're at it.

Hell yeah! 👍 If only one of them had snapped off a streetlamp and used it like a baseball bat. If you're going to steal Superman, at least do it right.

kozz said:Movies like Equilibrium make me wish The Matrix had never happened. Ever since then, we’ve been flooded with endless clones—protagonists strutting around in tight black leather, pulling off cheap bullet-time stunts. I can't help but wonder if the real culprit is just the fact that Joel Silver produced about 90% of them.

Ali kozz, there isn't any bullet-time in Equilibrium at all. In fact, I'm pretty sure they didn't even use slow-motion. And thank God they didn't have Joel Silver involved either.

Kico said:I liked The Matrix because it actually felt grounded. There’s a massive gulf between genuine science fiction and pure naivety, and this? This is just naive.

How is Smith’s transition into the real world any less naive than neo’s resurrection or those telekinetic powers we saw in RW?

Do you honestly think the Wachowskis considered a twist where Kid The One was actually the protagonist? If they didn't, then what was the point of that silver spoon in Reloaded?

Tiamat said:Here’s a little something to pass the time and clear your head—a link to The Matrix.

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/...solutions.html

Aren't they brilliant? I find myself visiting that site every single day.

rapidstag74 said:But Richard Hernandez13, there isn't any bullet-time in Equilibrium at all. Honestly, I'm pretty sure there isn't even any slow-motion in there. And thank God there isn't any Joel Silver either.

but there was definitely some martial arts involved. I actually meant to add that to my previous post, but I accidentally hit the quote button instead of edit—so then I ended up deleting that whole new post because I totally forgot what I had changed in it.

Richard Hernandez13 said:But there was martial arts involved. I added that to the post later, but I accidentally hit quote instead of edit—so I deleted the new post, forgetting what I had actually changed.

Fine, the movie features martial arts. But the W. brothers didn't invent that. The film uses this "gun-kata" stuff which is pretty cool.
Also, Equilibrium isn't visually ripping off The Matrix.
Personally, I prefer Equilibrium over The Matrix. It’s a matter of taste, I suppose. How should I put it? It feels more "scientifically plausible" to me. 😁
But seriously, the film feels more human than the entire Matrix Trilogy (damn, by the end I was actually rooting for the machines). If I didn't know better, I'd say Trinity is just a cold machine. A bloodless, unlikable bitch.
Anyway, the bitch is dead, let's celebrate!

I think Dark City is better, too.