The Matrix and V for Vendetta movies are connected, just check this video out.

Two of Hollywood's greatest ever movies: The Matrix and V for Vendetta. Two movies both jammed packed full of ideas and hidden symbolism. But what happens when you put them both together??? Join me as we put the pieces of the puzzle together...

Two of my favorite movies! But you know . . . finding connections in things that aren't really there is a sign of psychosis. But on the contrary of this thread, that cheese cake in your avatar looks amazing

well both movies were written by the Wachowski Brothers so it seems reasonable that there would be some common elements.....i always felt they were connected....they both deal with control schemes.

Made by the same guys, no surprise there.

All Tarantino movies are connected as well, red apple cigarettes in every one.

reply to post by Upton33


As a byproduct of my study of Biblical allegory, I have cracked much of the symbolism found in these two movies. I know that they are both allegories about the origins of Christianity, so yes, they are indeed connected, but unfortunately that only becomes really apparent when you know the true story behind Christianity which has been hidden from us.

Here is a connection that I have not seen mentioned. The word “Matrix” comes from the Greek word for “womb” and what is a womb? Answer: an “eggie in the basket”. Both V and Gordon Deitrich were collectors of art and literature which are key elements in the makeup of the “Matrix”. When they both make breakfast for Evey, they are contributing to the Matrix themselves. (V: “There are no coincidences, Delia…only the illusion of coincidence”.

The identity of “V” can be found by taking a walk down the Via Dolorosa where the Roman numeral “V” marks the spot where Simon of Cyrene took the cross from Christ. The theory held by some Gnostics that Simon died on the cross in Christ’s place holds some merit. (Christ was metaphorically crucified but the crucifixion in the Gospel accounts represents a different crucifixion.)

Christ himself is a key element of the Matrix since he is part of the “Word”. This means he is also a “mask” that hides true identities and true meanings. The use of the Guy Fawkes story is a common device employed in allegory in which the history from one era is used as a cover story for another and it is metaphorically referred to as the “grafting of vines”. This however, often results in inconstancies that critics are quick to jump upon, so placing the allegory into a future time period has a significant advantage.

Evey’s shaved head and Trinity’s short hair are also intended to suggest a masculine element in their characters. (Remember the remark Neo made to Trinity when they first met?) Evey’s identity is also found on the Via Dolorosa at position “IV” which belongs to Mary. (V: "It means that I, like God, do not play with dice and do not believe in coincidence.") You may remember that it has been noted that in Da Vinci’s Last Supper, there is confusion in regards to whether a male (John) or a female (Mary) sits next to Christ. This confusion is due to the fact that John and Mary were two faces (or masks) of the same person, in other words, a "hermaphrodite". Da Vinci knew this and whoever gave Evey and Trinity haircuts knew this. (We must accept the possible use of “ghost” writers.)

There is much more I can comment on, but I will let you digest this for now.

reply to post by swordwords


That's a great interpretation, I absolutely forgot about the messiah symbolism in the film. Neo represents Christ and trinity the Holy Trinity, thanks for pointing out all the correlation seen in this video.

Now that you have had the chance to digest my earlier comments, I will add a few more.

I imagine that you might be wondering: Who was Simon of Cyrene that he should be given such prominent role in V for Vendetta?

First look at the Gospel of Mark 15:17-21:

Mark 15: 17 They put a purple robe on him (Jesus), then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. 18 And they began to call out to him, “Hail, king of the Jews!” 19 Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. 20 And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him. 21 A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross.

Note that in these 4 verses we have a “purple robe”, the name “Simon” and the name “Rufus”. Now we look at Josephus’ Wars of the Jews, Book 7, Chapter 2, paragraph 1:

"And now Simon, thinking he might be able to astonish and elude the Romans, put on a white frock, and buttoned upon him a purple cloak, and appeared out of the ground in the place where the temple had formerly been. At the first, indeed, those that saw him were greatly astonished, and stood still where they were; but afterward they came nearer to him, and asked him who he was. Now Simon would not tell them, but bid them call for their captain; and when they ran to call him, Terentius Rufus who was left to command the army there, came to Simon, and learned of him the whole truth, and kept him in bonds, and let Caesar know that he was taken."

Here we have in a single paragraph the “purple cloak” and the names “Simon” and “Rufus”. This is a red pill/blue pill moment. If you accept this as coincidence you take the blue pill, if you see these correlations as intentional then you have taken the red pill. A simple decision; no magic. (Remember V and Morpheus don't believe in coincidence.)

This Simon that Josephus is talking about was a Zealot leader during the so-called Jewish revolt of 66-73CE. Josephus’ account of this revolt is rather curious in that it contains not a single mention of Christ or Christians, even though the Christians were reportedly persecuted for their alleged involvement in the burning of Rome only two years before the revolt broke out. In other words Josephus’ “tomb” appears empty, but that is because the Christians have been given “masks”.

According to Josephus, the Zealots owed their origin to the one he identifies as Judas the Galilean. The name “Judas” is intended to suggest the Hebrew word “yada” which means “to know” and these Zealots were really the proto-Christians which are known to us as the Gnostics. The Gnostics knew the secrets of the allegory that makes up the Matrix and the wide spread dissemination of this knowledge led to an “Apocalypse” or an “uncovering”. (Thus Judas is given credit for betraying Christ.) While there was a significant effort to destroy Gnostic works to undo the damage, there was also an effort to infiltrate the group and alter the nature of their teachings. This effort was led by the Jewish Philosopher Philo who admitted to the allegoric nature of the Books of Moses, but provided misleading interpretations. This two faced Philo is metaphorically represented as both Mary and John since his mix of deception with truth represented both “male” and “female” elements. The infiltration proved successful and it explains Neo’s unexpected victory over Agent Smith at the end of Matrix Revelations as well as his first victory over Agent Smith in the Matrix.

In Book 6, chapter 3, paragraph 4 of Josephus’ Wars of the Jews, Josephus tells the story of a Mary who was driven by hunger to roasting and eating her own infant during the siege of Jerusalem. However, Josephus notes that Mary only consumed half of the child and offered the other half to the rebels. This is an allegory directly related to the half interpretations offered by Philo. The name “Mary” is intended to suggest the Hebrew word “merea’” which means “friend” and this corresponds to the meaning of “Philo” in Greek. (Philo’s “John” mask is explained in Plato’s Ion. “John” also happened to be the name of a rebel faction leader that was in opposition to Simon.)

Now for the “eyes”. Both Neo and V are shown without eyes and this represents the removal of their history from the literal layer of the allegory. When a new history is created, they get their eyes back, but obviously they are not the same eyes. In the Gospel of John, there is a significant discussion about a “man born blind” and this relates to the character of Christ who never had a real existence, but was given one with the Gospel accounts.