Who says this movie ain't deep? (Spoilers)

Rating: 8/10 (23 May 2003)

Very interesting sequel to the classic original. My friends and I were talking after the movie ended about the layers of philosophy at work here: if, as the Architect says to Neo, he has saved Zion 5 times before, and Neo was really never meant to save anyone, but instead was being used as another system for control ("religion" facilitating that control, then free will has been a joke in this world until that point. Consciously choosing a different path is the first real act of choice, and cannot be undone (as evidenced by the Architect saying "you won't see me again.") So, the revolutionary/messianic aspect of Neo was used by the system as a means of control. This is similar to Foucalt's contention that leftist groups consolidate the power of the state and lend it legitimacy. If the average person sees a leftist group or demonstration, they themselves are less likely to act, as they think that "Someone else will do that." Therefore, the state contains dissent by encouraging dissent: the trappings of revolution are used to ensure the continuation of the state. Wow. What other movie has references to Greek mythology, Shakespeare, and Foucalt? People who didn't like this movie should give it another chance- it really is as deep as the original, you just need to process it all. I agree, though, that the Zion scenes are talky and boring. The movie doesn't really get going until the enter the Matrix. Can't wait for part III!