ah ok! I don’t have that, unfortunately, but I did find the article on Entertainment Weekly’s website after all:

https://ew.com/movies/1999/04/09/how-matrix-made-it-big-screen/

Sometimes magazines have multiple covers for the same issue, or for different countries, so I guess that’s what happened here.

Hi, if you mean published on Entertainment Weekly, I don’t think they had a website yet back in 1999. But the text is the original text.

Hello, this website is merely an articles archive and we did not write this article. You may wish instead to send your feedback to the author Julie Jordan from People magazine.

That said, please note our website guidelines on being excellent to each other. Inaccurate transphobic accusations of being led by CIA-controlled Satanists are at the very least rude, especially because this site is led by a Christian trans man with no connections to the CIA. This site also takes a lot of effort to run, and we would prefer not to have the credit go to other people like Alexandra Grant, who has done absolutely nothing to help with web development or uploading articles or anything at all, really.

Thank you for your understanding.

I'm so sorry to hear that. Might there be anything in place where you are to protect mentally ill individuals from mishandling their finances? If she has a doctor or social worker who's been treating her, you could reach out to them for help, or contact the relevant services in your area.

From his interviews, for the John Wick franchise at least, he makes them because he enjoys them. In this interview itself he said he loves the character and the world.

The violence in his movies are more art than senseless killing - they're choreographed like dances, like martial arts movies where people watch them for the skill and athletism displayed, not the deaths. The Matrix trilogy and Man of Tai Chi would be good examples of that. It's also the same reason people enjoy fencing. Personally, JW3 was too violent for me, but in JW1 and 2 there was that joy in seeing shots or punches lining up just right with the background music and rhythm.

Keanu has been known to turn down movies on the basis of violence before, and in his own movies there's often a sense of honour amidst the senseless violence: such as how John Wick goes out of his way to never hurt civilians, only those who wish to kill him or hurt others. It's bringing some meaning to what often seems like a meaningless world, and I guess it also gives audiences the catharsis of watching someone take justice into his own hands rather than depend on a world that keeps letting him down.

His movies have seemed to be getting more violent, but I think that's also a reflection of the world and the times we're living in, where all that built-up despair and helplessness needs an outlet.

Sorry about that! Links fixed.

okay

Keanu chatted to his leg hair the way the Wachowskis chatted to their couch: covertly, with mild embarrassment, and with no expectation (but still the hope!) of a response.

This night, he sighed as he settled down on the floor with a cold bottle of vintage Perrier.

"Ah..." he commented, addressing his leg hair (for he was lonely), "What is life, but the temporal passing of souls through the ether of existence in this wild and wondrous world we call our home?"

His leg hair nodded in grave assent, although it could always have been the breeze.

Keanu took a swig. "This is not beer," he confided with a wink, stroking his left leg. "It has no alcoholic content whatsoever." He beamed.

His phone pinged. He pulled it out. Another one of his fans on Instagram was having doubts about sending him $50,000 for his orphanage, even though he'd given very clear instructions on how to wire the money to untraceable accounts with his friends in Nigeria and Burkina Faso, Turkey. He shook his head. There was so much scepticism these days. "There's so much scepticism these days," he murmured to his sympathetic leg hair as he typed in a reply:

'I LOVE YOU OK??!!,' he texted coherently. 'IF YOU LOVE ME YOU WILL GIVE ME THE MONEY DONT DISAPPPPOINTTED ME!!!?'

He tapped 'send' with a satisfied air and put his phone back down.

"I envy you, John," he said (for that was what his leg hair was named), taking another swig and letting his head fall back against the wall. "What a peaceful life you must lead."

Firstly, good job on the fake guest account. For anyone watching, it’s the same person talking to herself.

Secondly, that’s a lot of assumptions. It’s the same logic as claiming that Keanu must secretly enjoy chatting to his leg hair when he’s lonely but doesn’t tell anyone because they would think he’s mentally ill and it would lose him fans and clearly he cares too much about the money to do that, which therefore makes him such a dishonest and corrupt guy who can’t be respected.

I think Keanu has constantly shown through the way he lives his life that he is not focused on money and would be content with living a simple life, while practically everyone who has met him specifically emphasizes his humility.

Also - I don’t know where you get the impression that coming out as gay would lose any male celebrity their female fans. Just go to tumblr. Gay actors have tons of female fans, many of whom like them specifically because they’re gay. Heck, straight male actors are often pressured by female fans to come out as gay because then they can ship them with their co-stars. Whereas it’s the male fans using vomit emoticons and talking about how disgusted they are. If Keanu does say he's gay, he's much more likely to lose male fans, not female ones.

Lastly - is there a reason you think he’s gay instead of, say, bi or pan or generically queer? Because he seems much too happy and at peace for someone presumably repressing his sexuality and pretending to be someone he’s not, speaking from experience.

Hi there,

To the best of my knowledge, Keanu doesn't visit this website.

Assuming you were aware of that and instead intended to pose that question to everyone else here who isn't a vegetarian (vs vegan, since you specified animal lives), I can't speak for everyone, but would say that if saving animal lives through a change in diet was your core concern, it is much easier and more effective to convince people to reduce, rather than eliminate, the amount of meat they eat.

I recall reading that the greatest drop in meat consumption resulted not from an increase in vegetarians and vegans, but rather the introduction of Meatless Mondays. In other words, if you manage to convince a group of 10 people who usually eat meat every day - say for lunch and dinner - to give up meat on just one of those days, which is very easy to do, that would be 20 fewer meals with meat in them. Whereas convincing just one person to go vegetarian and give up all meat for every meal, which is much, much harder and would require a lot of lifestyle, financial and social adjustments, that increased effort and necessary changes in someone's life would result in only 14 fewer meals with meat in them. (The effort needed increases exponentially - with little to no difference in impact - if you ask them to go vegan.)

So that would already be a good start, and more likely to have an actual impact on the number of animal lives lost. Most people could also easily go further than that, for instance eating meat only once a week or month (as used to be the case in the past), or primarily eating dishes where meat is used as a garnish (e.g. a couple of wontons in a bowl of noodles, or salad with bacon bits) rather than as the main item.

Nonetheless, if saving animal lives is your end goal, I suggest that going vegetarian is one of the least effective ways of accomplishing that. Right now, a significant portion of all meat goes to waste. Every year around the world, 12 million slaughtered animals never get eaten due to waste - and that is something that personally disturbs me a lot. Going vegetarian won't change those statistics the way it would in a world where animals are only slaughtered on demand; it's much, much more likely to only add to the amount of unsold meat that gets thrown out.

Since this seems to be a cause you are passionate about, and that's great, I would suggest trying to find a way to reduce that wastage - especially since the less meat is wasted, the greater the potential impact of individuals removing meat from their diet. One way is to talk to restaurants, hotels, supermarkets and grocery stores to see if their excess stock can be distributed to needy communities rather than thrown in the trash. There are certain food safety regulations around that which currently get in the way of businesses distributing leftover food, and it would be good to look into how compromises can be made - perhaps if you organise a group to collect that food and distribute it, such that the businesses themselves won't be held liable for any food poisoning incidents. But these laws differ from country to country, so you can see what the case is where you live.

I recently also learnt about a diet that involves hunting animals that pose a danger to other animals - such that killing (and eating) them actually saves those other animal lives, vs. if one were to leave them alone. For people who are unwilling to give up meat and who live in an area where hunting is possible, this could be another option to promote as an alternative to getting meat from farms.

A bivalve-focused diet (oysters, clams and such, which have a sentience on par with plants) is also good, healthy, has a positive rather than negative environmental impact, and results in none of the unintended animal deaths (e.g. those that are killed to protect the crops, or which get caught in farming machinery) that occur from growing the crops that form the basis of vegetarian and vegan diets.

If however you believe in solely promoting vegetarianism as much as possible, you could open a vegetarian restaurant - or, if that's not realistic, convince existing restaurants to provide more vegetarian options. It goes back to the same principle of trying to increase the number of vegetarian meals consumed (since every vegetarian meal is one less meal with meat in it), vs increasing the number of vegetarians - the people most likely to shift to a vegetarian diet are usually those who may not have been eating that much meat to begin with, such that the difference in impact is minimal.

The percentage of vegetarians in the human population is currently about 20%, the vast majority of which are due to necessity rather than choice. This is unlikely to change much in the foreseeable future, such that I think it would be much more helpful to start from the reality of a world where the majority will continue to eat meat, and in that context see how we can work to reduce animal suffering and wasted loss of lives as much as possible.

Can ask for the name of the charity organisation so you can donate directly. :P