They're making a Matrix 5.

[Tyndmyr]

Yes, the earlier versions were discussed before - by different characters, in a different movie, in different context. Just the fact that it's a fully lucid Neo there, reacting to the information imparted, rather than barely-conscious Morpheus, makes a relevant difference. You are right the exact number does not matter, but the fact that it is more than two establishes a new and important fact: this has happened before and Zion has fallen before. Neo even remarks on it being new information to him. That alone gives a point to reiterating this information.

He's not reacting very much.

More to the point, his reaction does not matter. Any reaction whatsoever leads to the same outcome.

. It's like you almost got the point but then didn't realize it's a point the movie was trying to make to you.

So? Something being intentional does not make it good.

The Room was made intentionally. The Room is not good, save for in the ironic sense of amusement that such an insane work managed to be made at all.

If Neo had not chosen to rescue Trinity, his actions would've not lead to Revolutions and Resurrections.

How so? Resurrections is pretty much just recycling the original "The One" storyline. It doesn't differ much from just another iteration.

The storyline is a good deal more coherent without that. One can still somewhat believe that Neo is unique, and thus that the Agent Smith problem is also unique, and therefore the original trilogy has some sort of actual change to the status quo as a result. Resurrections undoes that, and makes it all meaningless, because despite it all, we are back at another iteration.

Another way to realize this is to consider common audience reactions to the Trolley Problem, which Neo's choice is a version of: there's always a segment of people who refuse to accept the terms and insist on finding a third option. The Architecht's bit about hope points this out, and, again, tells us something about who these characters are.

In this room, Neo does not attempt a third option. He literally just picks one of the two presented options.

Except the lines of conflict got redrawn, it's no longer the same people fighting for the same sides. I'll grant you that Resurrections doesn't focus on this enough to make you feel the difference, but it does explicitly address it.

Remember: I don't particularly like Resurrections either. What bothers me is not your dislike for it, it's when your justification for that dislike turns ignorant of what happened on the screen.

Agent Smith swapping sides is not terribly well justified, motivated, or even consistent with the character in any way. Ultimately, it remains humans with a secret AI ally against the machines...it doesn't actually differ from the original in this, because the Oracle always served this role. Resurrections is literally just the plot of the first movie recycled, but a great deal worse.

In doing this, what comes before is made ridiculous. See also, episode 7 of Star Wars. If the status quo has suddenly reverted swiftly and almost inexplicably, does this not diminish all that was done to overcome evil before this? Of course it does, and this is a fundamental problem with Resurrections. The story being told doesn't advance the plot, it mostly just resets it. The quality being far worse doesn't help it, but the story at the core of it isn't good or new.

Is it charging me full price for entry and running for a feature length amount of time? Then yes. A film needs to stand up as a complete movie even when it's a sequel or a middle child. You really can't take an extra long movie chop it in half part way through and then call it "complete". Also I lay a lot of flaws at the feet of reloaded I might need clarification here on which one also applies to Two Towers.

This, I feel, is also a fair view. The most recent Spiderverse movie was generally well received and considered good, an assessment I agree with. However, there was still some annoyance at the fact that it was a mostly unannounced first half to a two parter.

That's reasonable. Viewers came expecting one movie, not to be obligated to watch a second to finish the story. The story being good means the saltiness won't be as bad as Matrix 4/5, but still, it's fair to expect the studios to deliver what they promise us.

are you familiar of The Myth of Sisyphus by the french guy Albert Camus? Camus being a world war 2 survivor who later died in his 40s via a car crash and wrote some of the french classics like The Plague, The Rebel, The Stranger, The Fall and before his death a year before he got the Nobel Prize in Literature. (forgot to mention written in 1942 after France lost and is now an occupied power, it is a story of failure and living)

I think almost everyone who reads is familiar with the tale of Sisyphus.

One can imagine Sisyphus happy, if one wishes. He is fictional. It does not change the quality of the work. One can be satisfied by eating bad food, because it is superior to starvation, but that does not mean a terrible meal is actually wonderful. You are free to enjoy a bad movie, or to eat bad food if you wish, but it's not reasonable to redefine every word to justify your opinion as having some kind of universal meaning.

To say that a move is satisfying because it is unsatisfying is to ignore the plain definition of words. This is incoherent, not wise, and no amount of literature references can change this.