<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Blogcritics: Comments on Hey Matrix, I really like you...but...</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/</link>
<description>A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously.</description>
<language>en</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2005 by the authors</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Sun, 9 Nov 2003 10:38:27 EST</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
<generator>Blogcritics.org custom software</generator>

<item>
<title>Comment by Pedro</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/06/103023.php#comment-27842</link>
<description>The thing I find fascinating about the Matrix movies is that they downplay a little the effect of what religion has done to our society. All of us one way or the other get preached about &quot;the end of all things&quot; and that a &quot;savior&quot; God will save us all. To me all those characters in Matrix have hidden meanings in their names i.e. Neo (New, New Man/World, Adam, Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, Tammuz, Dumuzi, Yahweh, whatever, all the same concept throughout the centuries), and Trinity (the three aspects of &quot;God&quot;, pyramid, the perfect 3 symbol, or did I say &quot;tree&quot; symbol), and Smith (like a Blacksmith, expert of all things, changes things with a blow of his sword like a swordsmith). In other words, the directors and writers of this movie to me are not mysterious at all. Unless you mean they are of the mystery religions in the past. Which Christianity is based on. Christianity is never the first nor it is the last to imitate a culture/religion/cult from the ancient past. The book, &quot;The Christ Conspiracy&quot; is an excellent book to study. I have studied for years how the world has worshipped many Saviors. Most were warrior like yet others &quot;peaceful&quot;. The Matrix (The Beginning, Center, Source) is both a spit at ignorance movie and it also celebrates all Savior religions and their myths.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">27842@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 9 Nov 2003 10:38:27 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by donna</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/06/103023.php#comment-27676</link>
<description>ha nice review.  it kinda makes me not want to watch it a lot more than i didn&#039;t want to watch it in the first place...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">27676@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 7 Nov 2003 20:06:54 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Chiggs</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/06/103023.php#comment-27520</link>
<description>Wow Philip, you&#039;re so brilliant.  I didn&#039;t even realize that I was being serious and not at all sarcastic, but you&#039;ve surely set me straight.  

Secondly, have you read the bible?  That said, have you read greek mythology?  News flash, there are so many similarities and parallels its sick.  So before you start tearing apart a film for &quot;ripping from religion&quot; why don&#039;t you go rip major religion from ripping from paganism?

Also, any high school level english course would probably fail you if you were to write a paper suggesting that the Matrix films had only a &quot;superficial resemblence to the message of Christianity.&quot;  Why don&#039;t you back that up instead of dismissing everyone else?  &quot;Give it a try.&quot; I bet you think that Creed isn&#039;t a religious band too.  Wait, I bet you like Creed.

</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">27520@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 7 Nov 2003 13:43:12 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Dew</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/06/103023.php#comment-27468</link>
<description>We&#039;ll have to agree to disagree there. It could be that I am seeing what I want to see but there&#039;s a world of religious and philosophical (mostly non-existentialism) content not so hidden within the films. 

Is it superficial? But of course. Unfortunately that is the fate of most of today&#039;s entertainment. With so many elements playing into the storyline, as I see it, it would be hard to go in depth on anything without taking away from the other elements. 

All in all the references are there and they are evident and for the most part intentional. Bon Apetit!</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">27468@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 7 Nov 2003 10:07:49 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Phillip Winn</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/06/103023.php#comment-27464</link>
<description>Simple facts:
&lt;b&gt;Chiggs&lt;/b&gt;: Your ignorance is appalling, but you&#039;ve managed to state so little that there isn&#039;t even much to criticize. A reference to &quot;the crusades?&quot; Wow, obviously a student of history. News flash: Keep studying, the crusades did far less to propogate Christianity than the Great Awakening, and it is modern Christian evangelicalism that I fault for over-simplifying gospel imagery so that it is so easily misunderstood and mis-identified in films.

&lt;b&gt;Visual&lt;/b&gt;: Sorry, I tried to keep my comment vague, but combined with Dew&#039;s, yes, it&#039;s a semi-spoiler.

&lt;b&gt;Ade&lt;/b&gt;: Come up with their own stories? Um, are you &lt;b&gt;seriously&lt;/b&gt; suggesting that the Wachowskis came up with something original instead of cribbing from every major (and many minor) religions? You&#039;ve got a serious problem with timelines, Ade. Think about which came first. Any high-school level English class ought to introduce you to allegory. Give it a try.

&lt;b&gt;Dew&lt;/b&gt;: All of that said, I still have to stand by my original assertion. The bros didn&#039;t manage to achieve more than a very superficial resemblence to the message of Christianity anywhere in the three films. I identify much more of Buddhism than Christianity, and see Neo in the role of an enlightened one rather than Christ.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">27464@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 7 Nov 2003 09:35:40 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Dew</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/06/103023.php#comment-27447</link>
<description>Unfortunately Ade I have to disagree with you there. When the brothers wrote the stories they did so with religion and philosophy in mind. You can learn so from any of the interviews done with the actors and Joel Silver (since the brothers themselves are rarely interviewed). 

If you watch the movies you can see the religious inferences. The most obvious would be in Revolutions where Neo (One) is called the Savior and the Messiah. You can not get anymore obvious than that. </description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">27447@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 7 Nov 2003 08:26:30 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Ade</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/06/103023.php#comment-27446</link>
<description>i&#039;m just amazed at how a story that has a hint of cool and thought all of a sudden gets annexed as a christian movie and that it is plain to see it that way.
yeah right, what about all the buddhist, taoist, shinto , psychology and philsophy. are the christian churches so desparate for love they are in the assimilation business now...
the matrix is a stand a lone story, it has nothing to do with jesus christ, or vishnu or buddha, it is a story about humans and machines, neo and agent smith. i wish organised religions would stop being damn lazy, come up with your own damn stories </description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">27446@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 7 Nov 2003 08:19:53 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by visualsimplicity</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/06/103023.php#comment-27428</link>
<description>Wait wait, did I just read a spoiler right here. Darn. I knew I should have held off my curiousity to read stuff about the Matrix here until after I&#039;d seen Revolutions.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">27428@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 7 Nov 2003 01:49:05 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Chiggs</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/06/103023.php#comment-27426</link>
<description>Wow Philip, you should definately organize a crusade, because I don&#039;t think Christian theology has managed to propegate itself.

Hrrm.. i wonder if Jesus could do kung fu as well as Neo... I wish I had a kung fu action Jesus with karate chop arm.  That&#039;d be so cool. Especially if he wore tight leather.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">27426@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 7 Nov 2003 00:49:37 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Dew</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/06/103023.php#comment-27266</link>
<description>Well that part I did catch. The whole &#039;purpose&#039; issue played out to help Neo understand in order to stop Smith he had to &#039;sacrifice&#039; himself. Hence The Oracle speaking through Smith at the end.

&#039;Everything that has a beginning has an end&#039;. 

Maybe there should be a spoiler label on these comments, sorry.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">27266@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:16:18 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Phillip Winn</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/06/103023.php#comment-27260</link>
<description>Dew, if they were aiming for Christian mythology, they barely dealt it a glancing blow. The idea of Christianity is &amp;mdash; as you know &amp;mdash; much more than the simplistic &quot;sacrifice yourself to save the world.&quot; It is our fault (speaking collectively for Christians) that we have allowed the gospel to be simplified such.

But I didn&#039;t think of a crucifixion, mostly because it wasn&#039;t at all clear to me that the sacrifice was intended from the outset. </description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">27260@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:06:48 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Eric Olsen</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/06/103023.php#comment-27250</link>
<description>Viv, you are creative and funny. Rock on.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">27250@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 6 Nov 2003 13:45:45 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Dew</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/06/103023.php#comment-27248</link>
<description>I liked it too Phil. Although was it just me or was that a crucifixion at the end?</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">27248@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 6 Nov 2003 13:43:00 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Phillip Winn</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/06/103023.php#comment-27212</link>
<description>I can&#039;t even tell if this is supposed to be a good review or a bad one, but I like it anyway. Maybe that&#039;s &lt;b&gt;why&lt;/b&gt; I like it.

Personally, I loved the movie, and I don&#039;t think they overplayed the &quot;God&quot; aspect of things, but that&#039;s just me.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">27212@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 6 Nov 2003 11:34:25 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by neo</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/06/103023.php#comment-27185</link>
<description>indeed.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">27185@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 6 Nov 2003 10:47:16 EST</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>