an interesting defense of the Matrix sequels

I don't agree with the general thrust of this guy's analysis, but he does make a compelling argument for offering the Matrix sequels more respect than they normally get:

Note that even this guy has trouble defending "The Matrix Revolutions," though. Like me, he appreciates how "The Matrix Reloaded" subverts what we think we know after watching "The Matrix." (And as I've argued elsewhere, I think the Wachowskis should have ended the series right there, on that cliffhanger.) But his defense of "Revolutions" brings up some points I hadn't considered, so all in all, I think his video is worth a watch.

My problem with "Revolutions" comes down to a few basic points: (1) the Wachowskis succumbed to the temptation to end everything with a huge final battle, which is typical for a big-budget movie series; (2) the character of Morpheus, who started off as such an important person at the beginning, is reduced to copilot status by the end, thus wasting his metaphysical and theological potential; (3) Neo had already gone through the christic death-resurrection-ascension cycle in the very first film, so giving him another Christlike death in "Revolutions" was, to say the least, awkward (although his body was carried away in a manner evoking Viking legends, which was a cool touch); (4) the Wachowskis apparently lacked the imagination to explore the idea that the Matrix is a many-layered onion, with every layer realer than the previous one. I know that some argue the onion-Matrix would have been too obvious of a move, but I think the many-layered notion would have given the Wachowskis whole new universes to explore, or at least to hint at. Ever read the end of the Narnia series? CS Lewis presents a vision of heaven in which, paradoxically, each level up seems smaller from the outside, but the moment you break into the next level, you discover it's actually bigger on the inside. The Wachowskis should have gone in a similar direction.

I could add some minor annoyances, such as the unnecessary death of the Keymaker, the very brief appearance of the Merovingian (with his bizarre laugh), and the underuse of great actors like Harold Perrineau and Monica Bellucci. Looked at backward, it's like a logarithmic graph of awesomeness: "Reloaded" is orders of magnitude better than "Revolutions," and "The Matrix" is orders of magnitude better than "Reloaded."

Still, it's true that the universe of the Matrix provides us with plenty of food for thought on many different levels: artistic, philosophical, theological, etc. So some of what the guy talks about above does, in fact, resonate with me. In a comment on a different Matrix video, I wrote the following (edited for content):

I never thought of the Oracle as evil, so this was an interesting take. The way I saw it, there are SFF stories in which good characters affirm human freedom and the power of choice, while evil characters affirm some sort of determinism. 

Take the Star Wars movies, for example: a good character like Yoda says, "Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future," affirming that futures are nebulous because people make choices that alter the shape of the possibility-trees. Luke also believes that his father Vader can still choose to be good. Meanwhile, Vader and the Emperor use words like "inevitable" and "destiny," showing their loyalty to the idea of determinism. Good is freedom-affirming; evil is freedom-denying.

So I saw a parallel in The Matrix when the Oracle affirms the power of choice (as does Neo himself in Revolutions when he answers Smith's "Why? Why do you persist?" by saying, "Because I choose to"), all while Smith speaks of inevitability and seeing a certain future.

A set of fantasy novels I read long ago, The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever (Stephen R. Donaldson), also has good characters who believe in choice and freedom pitted against evil characters who think in terms of destiny and inevitability. The evil Despiser creates a complex plot that our hero Thomas Covenant follows almost to the letter, like a rat in a maze, but Covenant (and his companion Linden Avery, who is arguably the protagonist in the final trilogy and tetralogy) manages to find ways to defeat the Despiser at the last moment through the exercise of freedom.

But I've seen other people argue that the Oracle's obvious manipulativeness hints strongly at the idea that her plans for humanity are not benign. She is just another layer of control—keeping humanity docile—however much she claims that Neo should "make up [his] own damn mind." So interpreting the Oracle as evil, as you do, is certainly plausible. Well argued. And thank you.