Caught again

Lots going on the last few days, and have had some difficulty prioritizing it all. Of course, went to see Matrix Reloaded today. I have little doubt that the film will bring new cache to the title many of us throw around: information architect. It has, as usual, some deep thoughts dressed up as deep thoughts. And more fight scenes have been added. It would have been difficult to live up to the hype of the original, but it is a very entertaining movie. If anything, that I am not more excited about it reveals how much the original raised the bar for this kind of film.

The flying has got to go. It’s like one of those silly quizzes when they ask what superpower you would most like to have. If he is capable of manipulating the structure of his world expertly, shouldn’t his skill-set be improving over time?

In some ways, I was less taken by the more familiar elements of the film. Infighting, politics, and a lack of the romantic ideal (at least in a more nuanced form). It was, I’m afraid, despite all of the deliberate esotery, unfortunately predictable. But aesthetics certainly saves it.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.


  1. Jenn
    Posted 5/17/2003 at 12:02 am | Permalink

    I just saw Matrix Reloaded and I didn’t know I had such high expectations for it until the movie was over. I wasn’t disappointed but I also didn’t walk out saying, “That was so awesome,” which I did after seeing the first one (maybe because the bar was raised so high.) Maybe it’s just me but I was constantly reminded of other movies- such as “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” “Clue,” “Speed,” “The Karate Kid,” “Evita,” “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles,” and so on. Also, there were many times when I was thinking, “What is this scene doing in the Matrix?” Orgasmic chocolate cake and a Zion rave party are a few that come to mind. But all in all, it’s worth the money. And I just have to say that Trinity is my idol!

  2. Barbara
    Posted 5/19/2003 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

    Remember that scene in “When Harry Met Sally” in the diner? And at the end the old lady says, “I’ll have what she’s having.” That’s what the chocolate cake scene reminded me of.

  3. Jenn
    Posted 5/19/2003 at 11:11 pm | Permalink

    It reminded me of that too! Did you know that the woman who says that is Rob Reiner’s mother? Just a little fact :)

  4. Posted 5/20/2003 at 9:47 am | Permalink

    i thought the whole rave scene was a good insight into the culture of Zion. I’m looking forward to the DVD so I can listen to the director’s commentary and see what they had in mind for that scene though.

  5. Alex Halavais
    Posted 5/20/2003 at 11:10 am | Permalink

    So, I wonder if there was an “esoteric” meaning to either of these scenes. Both remind me of a few things. Foucault is certainly a dominant player in the cake scene, along with Baudrillard. So what about the rave? Is it once again a nod to gnosticsism. Do the brothers W see themselves as bringers of light, hoping to allow their audience to move closer to gnosis? I want to know whether they have a Jungian analyst.

  6. Barbara
    Posted 5/20/2003 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    Damn you, can’t it just be orgasmic chocolate cake? Now I have to look up all that stuff.

  7. Alex
    Posted 5/20/2003 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

    There is no cake.

  8. Jenn
    Posted 5/20/2003 at 10:55 pm | Permalink

    If there is one thing I learn from this blog, it is new vocabulary. I can’t get through one of your entries, Alex, without having to pull out my dictionary (sigh.) :)

  9. Barbara
    Posted 5/20/2003 at 11:47 pm | Permalink

    To Jenn: Don’t feel bad, I use the dictionary, thesaurus, and google.

    To Alex: You’re right there is no cake. I’m going to keep that thought on the back burner and get back to you.

  10. Posted 5/21/2003 at 8:47 am | Permalink

    cake n. (kak) 1. A sweet baked food made of flour, liquid, eggs, and other ingredients, such as raising agents and flavorings.

    (Alternatively, it can be used as an acronym for the lion’s instinct: Chase, Attack, Kill, Eat.)

    Ok, maybe that’s not what you meant. One of my student reviews when I first got here said that I was pretentious for using too advanced a vocabulary (“SAT vocabulary,” as one student put it). My speech and writing is never–almost never–intentionally vague. I am a logophile, and every one in a while I will use a word because it fits so neatly what I am trying to say. But when it seems like an unusual word, especially in class, I always try to offer a definition.

    On the exam for media law, as with all exams, I deliberately tried not to use words that were difficult, yet still was asked to define “enumerate,” and “lexicon.” Those who asked for these definitions learned Enlish as their first language, I believe.

  11. Jenn
    Posted 5/21/2003 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    Hey, I asked what “enumerate” meant! :) And since you looked at me like I had 3 heads, I’ll never forget it. Thank you Alex for making me so articulate…haha!

  12. Posted 5/21/2003 at 9:45 am | Permalink

    Ooops! I thought at the time you were just relaying the question the student asked so that I could tell the whole class. Sorry about that!

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>