http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=20552

However, I felt an almost allergic reaction when I read this:

“But art is art, and philosophy is philosophy, and one does not usually advance the other.”

If I would hazard a guess, you seem like an objectivist, “perich”…or perhaps we should call you…Mr. A.

Also:
“With that put to rest, our only question is: what happened to those students who took “Philosophy of The Matrix” courses? Do they still get to keep their credits, even in light of the shoddiness of the sequels? Do they get their diplomas revoked? Do they have to take a summer class on “Star Trek and Man’s Search for Meaning” to catch up?”

You also seem like a bit of the condescending type (not to mention “condensing” with the utterly boorish reductionism of your criticism).

—
Nick wrote:
“but I saw it as Christian propaganda, if you look at the trilogy as a whole, and as the triumph of Christianity over other, “uncivilized” cultures. Imperialist/Orientalist, something like that.”

Well maybe, but I am just guessing that the one lady-boy, bondage addict Wackowski brother would disagree. Plus you are forgetting your Joseph Campbell archetypes and that BS. It could just as easily be Osiris or any number of sacrificial messiahs of myth. While the Christian allegory fits, I don’t see the film as being at all “pro-christian” in the sense of championing fundamentalist Jesus warriors.
Also the Imperialist/Orientalist dichotomy needs a little bit more textual evidence (or at the least a deeper explanation).
—

Matthew Belinkie wrote:
“My main problem with the second two Matrix movies is: why, oh why, does it never occur to anyone to question how they know they’re really, really out of the Matrix? C’mon people – I can remember at least two Star Trek TNG stories which hinged around people thinking they had left a simulation, but actually just were tricked into thinking they had left the simulation.”

I actually think that is the point of the scene with Neo and the old man looking over the recycling machines. One doesn’t ever leave the “simulation,” the “matrix,” or the “system.” One can leave one “simulation,” but would always be apart of another one.

“So what I thought Revolutions was going to be about is Neo realizing he’s still in The Matrix, and trying to become the first person to get out for REAL. And then at the end, it turns out the real real world is a little less bleak than the pretend real world (there’s still a sky).”

But then what is the real real real world? Smart reading.

—
Two reading recommendations:

http://www.mstrmnd.com/pages/matrix.html

this excellent article (which is annoyingly a flash presentation) does a great job of interpreting Reloaded.

Second,
Read Grant Morrison’s the Invisbles. All the good stuff in the Matrix was knicked (in a perfectly legal and cool way) from it anyway:

Lucifer: “Do you know what Manichean means, Dane?”

Dane: “Sure I do. It’s a bloke from Manchester.”

I was 90% convinced this is where the third movie was going. At the end of Reloaded, Neo discovers he has the ability to fry sentinels in the real world. How? Oh, I thought, he’s not IN the real world. Interesting twist.

That works out well, because the Matrix series had really painted itself into a corner. You’ve got billions of humans in vats – can you really take care of them on a planet with no sunlight? There CANNOT be a satisfying ending to the Matrix trilogy. In fact, it’s not even clear what the humans’ goal is. To destroy all the machines? But then billions of people would die. I guess it’s just to protect Zion, while freeing people from The Matrix one at a time. And you know what? Lame.

So what I thought Revolutions was going to be about is Neo realizing he’s still in The Matrix, and trying to become the first person to get out for REAL. And then at the end, it turns out the real real world is a little less bleak than the pretend real world (there’s still a sky).

Hey, can anyone explain to me how Neo blows up all those sentinels? Anyone? Bueller?

In all seriousness, the only one I saw multiple times was the first, and the others I only saw when in theaters. But I did feel like there was a swing in the Christian direction as they progressed. The first one seemed much more new-age, hippie, pseudo-Buddhist, and in a rather superficial way. I felt it was doing the “there is no spoon” stuff to be cool, trendy, awesome, etc., not because it was actually trying to make a point about how there is no spoon- it had other things in mind, but hold the phone, not until later will we find out. And then the second one happens with its pseudo-pagan orgy rituals and more Eastern-esque influence, so again, more trendiness. But there are more hints at more blatant Christianity in this one that lead into the next. And then the third movie hits you over the head with a huge Sledgehammer of Christianity, and, in a sense, tells you all the other stuff was bad and wrong because look, Neo=Christ and that’s Good because He has just saved everybody, just like the REAL Christ! Perhaps I’m taking it too far, but I saw it as Christian propaganda, if you look at the trilogy as a whole, and as the triumph of Christianity over other, “uncivilized” cultures. Imperialist/Orientalist, something like that.

However, the comic is much more entertaining.

The machines are clearly portrayed as evil within the film, representing the Devil. They keep the humans trapped within a make-believe world until they die and are subsequently eaten. So then, if the matrix represents the known world, then the “real world” (within the film) is representative of Heaven. Heaven here contrasts to the traditional imagery of a place of clouds and happiness that exist as an addition to the world – instead Heaven and Hell exist in the same universe that encompasses the world (or the matrix, in this case). Heaven simply means a higher plane of existance, at least for purposes of this. The humans that are freed sort of represent angels, in that they are able to roam “Heaven” but also occasionally visit “Earth” (the matrix) where they have supernatural powers (biblically portrayed as glowing and flying, here portrayed as kick-ass kung fu moves and the ability to jump really far) with Neo possibly being Jesus, as many others have already pointed out.
So the Devil is keeping humans trapped in the world, so it can pick them out to be eaten. The angels can free a few people, but not many, and are waging war with the Devil to ensure the freedom of the people to come to heaven. Jesus comes and sacrifices himself to provide a truce between the angels and the Devil, in which the angels are allowed to bring more people to Heaven (here it is shown as people who want to be freed, as opposed to the classic “good people go to Heaven, bad people don’t” thing).
Also, just to tie everything up, the Architect is obviously God, as he created the world/matrix.

So far it seems like a fairly obvious interpretation of Christianity. But when you take in to account that it was the humans that created the machines to begin with, then all of that goes out of the window.

Humans create the Devil. The Devil starts killing humans and generally being devilish. The Devil becomes more powerful than the humans and starts to capture them, put them in pods on farms etc. One human creates the matrix as a make-believe world in which the humans can live without being aware, and therefore afraid, of the Devil. This man has therefore become God. He has created the world that the humans believe is real, and therefore the “real world” becomes Heaven (again, Heaven=Hell=Heaven) and the “free people” become angels.

So if the story tells us that man has created the Devil and subsequently created God, Heaven/Hell and angels, does this not make it a challenge to Christianity as opposed to embracing it? Does it not suggest that the entire concept of religion has been completely invented by man? It takes a bit of digging, but that appears to be the message within the story.

Also this was just based on the Christian themes displayed in the film. The other religious imagery within the film has already been pointed out – I don’t know if they can be boiled down to the same message or not, I just went for the most obvious one. It seems a whole new post could be done just on the religious aspects of the matrix and whether they are challenged or embraced within the film.

I really want to take that university course now.

The episode comes down to this choice. Either the crew allows themselves to crash land and create this future (leading to Kira’s death), or they go home, thus saving themselves and Kira, but killing their 8000 descendants.

Discuss, in a 8-10 page paper, the ethics governing this choice. Cite your sources.

But we’re going off topic here. So…. the Matrix…