My answer to Stu
DJ Tim [00:41]
Well, what can I say. Basically I think you were expecting too much. It's a Hollywood film for god sake. Lets look back at the Matrix. In reality it was a very simple idea that had be covered in the (could be wrong here) 18th centaury by Rene De Carte (I'm sure I've spelt that wrong) Yes he's the Monty Python Drunken old fart. The second film introduce a mirade of ideas which I agree were just not answered. But I refuse to except that the last film was crap - I agree that it did not answer all the questions and I agree that the fight between Neo and Agent Smith was crap, but I thought it was fantastic if only for the fight for Zion scene. For me what made the third film was nothing to do with Trinity and Neo but just the whole Zion fight. In some ways I'd got bored with the Matrix because we knew all about it and Neo was all powerful there so why bother. What was interesting was how Zion would survive. As for the end scene (OH FOR GOD SAKE SPOILERS AHEAD LIKE ANYONE HASN'T SEEN IT) I thought it was obvious what happened. The Architect talked about balances. In Destroying Agent Smith Neo had to die or else there would not be balances.
To surmise great film, but take it with a pinch of salt. It's not like its a life philosophy and if you think it is well that worrying.