posted
Awww, I show you how your preconcieved ideas about the film ruined it for you instead of the actual film, and you have to say I'm taking it personally. How cute.
T`ain't nothing personal, so don't get all het up over it. It has become abundantly clear that so many people went into the movie expecting a different movie, that it was pretty much destined to be a disappointment. That's just the way people are, they can't really help it. It wasn't a curveball for its own sake, because the movie pointed in that direction the whole time. I remember time after time where I just couldn't believe the interpretations people were getting from Reloaded when it came out, mostly because 90% of the interpretations had little to do with what was literally said in the film. Pretty much every gripe seems to fall along the same lines in this thread. Mayhap you people tried to hard to read between the lines?
While it's very nice for you that you "felt" they were pressured or were doing something for some unrelated motives, the truth is the movies explained everything as they went along pretty literally, and the biggest mistake the Wachowski brothers made was to split Reloaded and Revolutions into two movies. The reason the latter was a mistake was because the middle movie came off as filler, which much of the actual film really was despite the 30 to 45 minutes of scenes that are integral to the story.
Oh, and first post on page two.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say you were taking it personally because of the points you made, but how you made them. Calling my ideas "ridiculous" and saying, "just because it's your idea does not make it a good one." The rolling of the eyes and the talking down to me like I didn't understand what was going on because it was "too complex". I understood it perfectly, and the fact that I didn't like a movie that you enjoyed was no reason for any of that. I never said that anyone who likes this movie is stupid. If the mere fact that my tastes differ from yours, or that I won't blindly accept a sequel as the word of God just because the original was good, are so offensive to you that you must respond by hurling insults, perhaps you should lay off the movies for a while. Or take your lithium before you post. This is not healthy.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You rag on me saying that I was insulting, then you insult me. The irony is not lost on me.
I said your synopsis was ridiculous because it is describing things that have nothing to do with what was clearly stated in the film. Like I said, you went in expecting a different movie, and when you didn't get the movie you wanted, you were disappointed. I have zero sympathy for that.
Perhaps you shouldn't be so defensive.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the last time, I went in with a completely open mind. The fact that I saw a crappy movie is no proof of misplaced expectations. Don't assume that everyone who doesn't like a movie comes to that conclusion because they were expecting something different. Some movies just aren't very good. Some people like a movie because of misplaced expectations. They're so sure that a movie will be good, they adjust their reality to fit their preconceived notions, general concensus notwithstanding.
Incidentally, if you think I'm being defensive, go back through the thread and see who threw out the first personal attack. There are plenty of people on this thread who liked the movie, and you're the only one I've been unable to have a civilized conversation with. Perhaps that will give you some indication. In any case, believe what you want. I'm through feeding you.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the only reason you're unable to have a civilized conversation with me is that you refuse to accept my opinion about your lack of taste.
Here's a breakdown:
You opine the movie sucked.
I opine that you either have no taste or saw a different movie than the actual movie.
You say that you are entitled to your opinion, and that I shouldn't opine such things about your opinion.
I scoff at the notion that you are allowed to opine about the movie, but I am not allowed to opine about your lack of taste about the movie. It's apparently perfectly fine for you to assume things about the movie without question, but as soon as someone assumes in the same manner you did about the movie with regard to your opinion, you get all jumpy and assume an insulting tone.
If you're allowed to hold your opinion about the film, I'm allowed to hold the opinion about why you obviously could not "get" the film. You're trying to argue about the validity of opinions by saying I'm not allowed to have one. Your bad. Posts: 289 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me preface this by stating that this is not another response in the previous fruitless argument (but thanks for your last post, GreNME, you were able to sum up what I was saying about you more clearly than I could have.)
I was just reading the rottentomatoes reviews. Of course, general opinion is not a flawless indicator of a movie's position in historical perception (although the mistakes they've made are far more the exception than the rule, so it's a pretty good guide.) But I was reading through some of the clips from the reviews, and I thought they were kind of funny. Not only did 65% of the reviewers dislike the film, but even among the minority of people that did like it, many of them weren't completely taken with it. Here are some examples of a few of the reviews that were considered good (in the 35%).
quote: "Watching the movie is sort of like finishing off a filet mignon dinner with Pop Rocks." -- Phil Villarreal, ARIZONA DAILY STAR
"Worthy of theater viewing based only on the mind-blowing CGI which take effects to a new level. The story's no longer intriguing, just the action." -- John Venable, SUPERCALA.COM
"I think I liked The Matrix better when the solution was still unknown." -- Joshua Tyler, FILM HOBBIT
"The ultimate triumph of visuals over narrative." -- Daniel Schweiger, FILM THREAT
"An exciting adventure despite its shortcomings... But in concluding the trilogy so carelessly, the Wachowskis have betrayed my trust and broken my heart." -- Eugene Novikov, FILM BLATHER
"The eye candy makes up for the weak dialogue and wooden acting." -- Scott Nash, THREE MOVIE BUFFS
"Merely an ending, instead of a grand, satisfying conclusion" -- Marty Mapes, MOVIE HABIT
"Though inferior to its predecessors, Revolutions does manage to keep the eyes intrigued for two hours of solid and well-photographed action sequences." -- David Keyes, DAVID KEYES' CINEMA 2000
"Even if The Matrix Revolutions fails to mesmerize your mind, it will dazzle your senses." -- Louis B. Hobson, JAM! MOVIES
"A satisfying if not totally comprehensible conclusion." -- Duane Dudek, MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL
"Its attempt at bringing a discussion of free will to the masses is admirable, even if its effectiveness is hampered." -- Jeffrey Chen, WINDOW TO THE MOVIES
"Drunk on itself and the possibilities of cinema to present allegory in grandiloquent gestures and crushing self-importance." -- Walter Chaw, FILM FREAK CENTRAL
"For a sense of closure, go ahead, see this insanely complex final battle between humans and machines. But be forewarned: The law of diminishing returns is in full effect." -- E! ONLINE
"True believers will be reaching for the red pill, but it's still not quite enough to convert the heretics." -- Ty Burr, BOSTON GLOBE
Not that this proves anything, but I thought it was kind of funny. These are some of the sentiments that gave it as high a mark as it got. Of course, on the other end are such lines as "an unmitigated disaster" and "The Matrix Revolutions sucks." But I'll leave those out.
quote:"I'm going to show them what you don't want them to see; a world without rules or boundaries. A world without you."
What did he show them, I wonder?
Did you see the fake sunrise at the end? Did you hear the Architect say that the people who wanted to be free would be freed? I'd say that's pretty word-for-word.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually enjoyed the movie, but I walked away with the grim suspicion that they hired George Lucas to write the dialoge. I found it unbelievable that a movie that plays on so many punk/goth/existentialist concepts could have such cornball dialogue.
Posts: 224 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've just seen it, twice. Once alone and once with a cute chick I met in the theater.
I'm so horribly disappointed. How could a movie with such a great concept and immense funding turn out such a stale plot? Such horrible actors? It's a disgrace to the first movie, which I enjoyed despite its relatively few plot holes.
Ugh. I'll start out with the unnecessary sub-plots. That obnoxious little kid is annoying as hell -- by obnoxious little kid, I could mean either the disgustingly cute Indian girl or the disgustingly eager teenage boy. Neither have any place in the movie -- it's almost as though Spielburg directed this crap. The relationship between Link and Zee is stale and forced, bordering on the emotionally scarring. (In my case, at least, I know my cynicism towards Hollywood at least tripled.) Similarly, Neo and Trinity's relationship, while required by cliche, is so ridiculously trite you can't help but cheer when Trinity dies (presumably by Keanu Reeves' bad acting).
I'm sure these useless and distracting (and badly written and badly acted, of course -- that's starting to become a given with the Matrix movies) were meant to provide some sort of personal perspective on the war from Zion. Which, if left to itself, may have been a good idea. Unfortunately, the idea was warped by whatever $2-an-hour moron wrote the script, and we wound up with these forced and cliche I-love-you-so-much (or in the obnoxious kid's case, I'm-coming-of-age-and-have-a-hero) relationships, compounded with the unbelievably bad acting from all parties involved.
But these sub-plots pale in comparison to the main plot itself. Good lord. With all these hundreds of millions of dollars available to spend on the film, the best they could do was make a shoot-'em-up, straightforward war movie? Its only twist was Agent Smith -- which, what with the great acting ability of Hugo Weaving and the potential brilliance of an endlessly duplicating program, could have been a saving point for the movie. Unfortunately, they corrupted even this guy with the cliche-villain lines denouncing truth, freedom, and that oh-so-insipid emotion, love. Hey everyone! Hate me! Ha ha! I hate love and freedom!
I've lost faith in the American public if this is what is marketed to us.
Not to mention the ending. The ending. Good god. Not even mentioning that it starts with Neo walking amongst robotic insects, what the hell? How the hell does Neo corrupting (presumably) one Agent Smith infect them all? If I corrupt one downloaded .mp3, I don't corrupt them all. I guess Agent Smith was meant to be some kind of huge, all-encompassing program, and each body was some kind of extension -- but it's a cheap wrath-of-god ending, and unworthy of the original concept. I remember feeling this sort of cheated feeling when I read Robin Hobb's Assassin trilogy, when King Verity sends goddamn dragons to dispose of the raiders. It's the same problem. The fist of God struck, with one simple solution to a complex and potentially intriguing problem. Even with the presence of an attractive woman, I felt very nearly nauseous.
And speaking of being sickened, don't get me started on the actors. There were a few potential greats -- the former Oracle, Hugo Weaving, possibly the infantry captain, one or two council members, and probably a couple others -- but, like I said, they were potentially great. Weaving was weighed down with crappy actors and a crappy script, the original Oracle died (the new one was decent, but hardly above average), and the other actors were mind-bogglingly bad. Morpheus and Trinity just kept looking at each other ridiculously blatantly after hearing each sentence or seeing any new stunt, to signify to the oh-so-dumb American public that hey! This is strange! React to it! Trinity and Neo, in particular, were probably the two most nauseating actors in the movie, Neo with his omnipresent confused look and just, gah, unbelievably bad dialogue and Trinity with her yadda yadda Neo's lover schtick. Ugh. Though, to be fair, the black security chief was also a living tough-prick-cliche, Naiobi was a living tough-independent-girl-cliche, and Morpheus was his usual hey-everyone-I'm-a-prophet-which-explains-why-I-speak-like-such-an-idiot-cliche. The Frenchman, jesus, I'd go into him, but I've already used the word "cliche" far too much in this post. The same goes with pretty much every aspect of the movie.
Now, the movie had some graces, even if they weren't saving. The special effects were stunning, even if they were used in moronic ways (I'll never get over the stupidity of the humanoid, open-seated machine guns). And it was very pretty watching people fight. And I will kill to get my hands on a version of that Chinese bodyguard's jacket (what was his name? Sh-----?). But there's no substance behind the glossy prettiness of the movie. A shame, considering how truly great the concept could have been (especially after weighing in the amount of money thrown into the franchise).
I feel cheated. What's worse, I think science fiction as a genre's been cheated -- not only does this series set a model (and thus, a standard) for future sci-fi flicks to follow, but any future movie that tries to use a similar concept to a more intelligent effect will inevitably be accused of theft and imitation of the much poorer original.
But someone find me one of those jackets, and I'll be your sex slave for a week. Or I'll hire Frisco to be your sex slave. It might put me out $20, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess the good thing about these reviews is that when I finally do see the movie, there's no way it can fall below all these expectations. Unless I'm running for "Nitpickiest Jatraquero of 2003". In this way, I managed to enjoy Reloaded OK. The only thing that really annoyed me was the sudden ending. Which probably wasn't as bad for me since I didn't see it until it came out on video.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw the movie tonight, read the reviews and still have some questions:
1- Did Neo really die? I got the impression that he was still alive since the second to the last scene of the machine world appears to be from his perspective.. beautiful golden light and all.
2- What was the purpose of the little girl who had no purpose? I thought she was just to prove that that was very little difference between a program and a human, a word and an emotion. Then the Oracle goes and asks her if she made the sun rise, and she says yes... was that just playful dialogue or does the girl actually have a larger role?
3- Color me dense, but how many worlds were there? a.Machine b.Human c.Matrix d.Architect and Oracle? Are there more? And in the last scene, in which world does the sun rise?
Thanks for indulging me.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:1- Did Neo really die? I got the impression that he was still alive since the second to the last scene of the machine world appears to be from his perspective.. beautiful golden light and all.
Neo's probably alive, considering the Oracle's declaration that they'll probably see him again. Someone in this thread -- was it Carrie? -- mentioned how the film took this theme directly from Le Morte d'Arthur. Apparently jacking the whole Christ thing wasn't enough.
quote:2- What was the purpose of the little girl who had no purpose? I thought she was just to prove that that was very little difference between a program and a human, a word and an emotion. Then the Oracle goes and asks her if she made the sun rise, and she says yes... was that just playful dialogue or does the girl actually have a larger role?
Her purpose was to look cute. Very Spielburg-esque. Why won't these goddamn movie producers learn that we don't want comic relief or cute children? No more Jar-Jar! No more Jar-Jar!
And she's a program, apparently with the power to craft sunrises. It's a bit of a non-sequitor, especially given her complete uselessness throughout the rest of the movie. But yes, the girl did, apparently, make the sunrise in honor of Neo.
quote:3- Color me dense, but how many worlds were there? a.Machine b.Human c.Matrix d.Architect and Oracle? Are there more? And in the last scene, in which world does the sun rise?
There's one world, the Earth. Former wars have scarred it to the point that humans live in an underground city called Zion, near the Earth's core where they can still draw on some heat. (This bit sounds intriguing -- thus, it's from the first movie, not the crappy sequels.) The machines live on the surface, which is where Machine City is and where that Sentinel army came from. They have technology sufficient for creating a virtual reality called the Matrix, in which the minds of their human batteries (because, of course, these machines are so technologically advanced they can't find a better power source than a human being) reside. The architect is, when it comes down to it, the master of the Matrix. He created it, he is it. The Matrix is also where the Oracle lives, in a little virtual apartment. She's a renegade program, like Agent Smith or the Frenchman. Meaning, she's a program that didn't return to the Source -- the core of the Matrix program, where the Architect resides -- for deletion, and continues living in the virtual world for her own reasons.
Of course, the idiots who wrote the script threw away a potentially interesting plot twist created by the end of the last movie, where Neo stopped the Sentinels with his mind. They could have made Zion just another level of the Matrix, which would have been a fantastic ending -- unfortunately, it would have been a fantastic ending, meaning they couldn't use it.
Their writers must work for Fox.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
BTW- As long as we're entertaining sources for the original plot; Christianity, King Arthur, etc. I read an interesting essay that theorizes it's a reflection of Gnosticism and Budhism.
It also echoes Carlos Casteneda
quote: “Human beings [are] travelers. . . The earth is their matrix. . . [It is] but a station on their journey; for extraneous reasons . . .the travelers had interrupted their voyage. . . . Human beings were caught in a sort of eddy, a current that went in circles, giving them the impression of moving while they were, in essence, stationary. . . . Sorcerers were the only opponents of whatever force kept human beings prisoners . . . by means of their discipline sorcerers broke loose from its grip and continued their journey of awareness. ” —Carlos Castaneda, The Active Side of Infinity
posted
Oh boy oh boy oh boy. I can't wait for Leto to respond to Eddie's review. It'll be just like the final Smith-Neo fight sequence, except without all the flying.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it's obvious that Eddie would've liked it had he gone in with an open mind.
The only reason not to like this movie is if you expect something different than what the movie was.
quote:I scoff at the notion that you are allowed to opine about the movie, but I am not allowed to opine about your lack of taste about the movie.
I think I understand why you're so offensive with your opinion, John. It's because you're countering his opinion on a movie with an attack on him, personally.
Saying that "T'ain't nothing personal" doesn't mean it isn't.
Why are you so much nicer in person?
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, the "matrix-in-a-matrix" bit would be nothing new anyway. It's even been in a movie, now that I think of it--The Thirteenth Floor.
I suppose I have no taste. I enjoyed the new Star Wars movies--they weren't as good as the originals, but they weren't bad, not to me. I enjoyed Reloaded, and I expect to enjoy Revolutions when I go see it. In fact, y'all have got me wondering just how Neo did defeat Smith; I may go sooner because of that.
Everything's been done before, in every possible way that's cool. Half the ideas we think are new are rehashes of stories done thousands of years ago, and the rest were new back sometime in Renaissance Europe. (Descartes wondered how he could know if an evil "genius"--a spirit, not a criminal mastermind--were controlling his perceptions. Different method, same result.) So everything is going to be at least slightly stale. The best we can hope for is to find something that isn't moldy yet.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing I don't understand is why the machines didn't just build a matrix where all the humans knew they were in it and the humans could make their world whatever they wanted it to be, I would defenitaly stay in the matrix if I was in it and if it was like that.
Posts: 2489 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Because you can see my face when I say what I do. Believe me, I don't say things much different, but there's definitely a difference.
And it isn't personal. I think that anyone who is whining about the movie being bad has no taste, because they're demanding the movie be something that no other film has been so far this year either. There are plenty of good films with plenty of neat things about them, but none of them are original, nor is the dialgue much (if at all) better. Yet, we don't see people going into diatribes about them. We don't see reviewers having a feeding frenzy on each new release. Why? Predisposition going to see the film. Make excusesall one likes, but formula-wise, Revolutions was on par with any film over the last few years. Any gripes about the movie are going to be strictly on a "this is what I thought it should have been" basis, not a "I didn't like it because of this" basis.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't this a semantic quibble? "The acting sucked" vs. "I expected more convincing acting"; "the dialogue sucked" vs. "I expected better dialogue"; "the plot was stale" vs. "I expected a more original plot". "[T]his is what I thought it should have been" and "I didn't like it because of this" are two sides of the same coin.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you like to believe that, ae, you are entitled to. However, one implies preconcieved notions while the other is basing solely on individual merits. Every post and review about the movie I have seen that was not good has been from implied preconcieved notions, even when people try to justify them.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
How do you evaluate a merit if not against a preconceived notion? Of what good acting is, of what a halfway interesting character is, etc. It is inescapable.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, but I wouldn't call The Matrix one of the pillars of cinema in any of those departments.
The problem is that people tend to put movies they like on pedestals. People like to pretend that their favourite movies are the best movies ever. The Matrix was a great action movie with very innovative cinematography. That's it. The sequels were the same, and I enjoyed them both for what they were. I certainly couldn't have done it better.
The other problem is that some people take the psychobabble in the three movies as though it's something new and try to pretend that The Matrix is some sort of philisophical "thinking man's movie" when it's nothing of the kind. It's a great flick, but make you think it does not. Again, the sequels were the same in this regard.
My only real criticism of Revolutions is that I would have liked to hear more talk about love.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem is that people tend to put movies they like on pedestals. People like to pretend that their favourite movies are the best movies ever. The Matrix was a great action movie with very innovative cinematography. That's it. The sequels were the same...
Ding ding ding!
Give the man a kewpie doll!
Incidentally, Twink, I'd have preferred to see a bit more of stuff like the possibility of that Power Plant Program being allowed to visit his daughter again, and maybe a bit on how the humans are going to deal with this new world where they aren't on constant guard (like, is it easier to plug into the Matrix now?), though they certainly aren't necessary for the base story. Of course, my favorite character is Seraph, mostly based on the "prodigal child" and "judas" remarks—I'd love to see a story on how he got where he was in the current films. But all of these speculations have little to do with the actual film, n`est ce pas?
Posts: 289 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: And it isn't personal. I think that anyone who is whining about the movie being bad has no taste, because they're demanding the movie be something that no other film has been so far this year either.
What?!?!
What part of "I'm right, and if you disagree, you're a moron." isn't personal? You yourself would call this an ineffective sort of a last resort argument. Why use it if there are honorable ways to avoid it?
And I think part of why you're nicer in person is that we keep you stocked with a steady supply of White Russians. Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: There are plenty of good films with plenty of neat things about them, but none of them are original, nor is the dialgue much (if at all) better.
That's where you're wrong. "Gigli", "Kangaroo Jack" and "From Justin to Kelly" were great movies, with fresh and original dialogue. If you didn't understand how much better they were than The Matrix Reloaded, it must be because you went into them with the wrong expectations. Posts: 69 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Not to mention the ending. The ending. Good god. Not even mentioning that it starts with Neo walking amongst robotic insects, what the hell? How the hell does Neo corrupting (presumably) one Agent Smith infect them all? If I corrupt one downloaded .mp3, I don't corrupt them all. I guess Agent Smith was meant to be some kind of huge, all-encompassing program, and each body was some kind of extension -- but it's a cheap wrath-of-god ending, and unworthy of the original concept. I remember feeling this sort of cheated feeling when I read Robin Hobb's Assassin trilogy, when King Verity sends goddamn dragons to dispose of the raiders. It's the same problem. The fist of God struck, with one simple solution to a complex and potentially intriguing problem. Even with the presence of an attractive woman, I felt very nearly nauseous.
Smith's death confused me for a while, too. But I think that I worked it out. The only part of this theory that I don't like is that it requires Neo to just submit - though, because Smith has been the embodiment of violence throughout the series, I do think it's kinda cool that such a thing could be disposed of by a key individual's peaceful surrender.
1). When a replacement comes around, programs are given a choice: return to the Source (deleted), or go into exile in the Matrix.
2). When a program has either fulfilled its purpose or lost its purpose, it faces no choice - it is deleted. #s 1 and 2 seem to be hardcoded into the Matrix.
3). Neo is connected to the Source; this is a property of being The One.
4). Smith, when absorbing individuals and programs within the Matrix, absorbs their powers. Thus he gains The Sight when absorbing the Oracle.
5). Smith's purpose is to balance out Neo's existance.
6). When Smith absorbs Neo he simultaneously looses his purpose and becomes connected to the Source. Thus the Source issues the delete command, and all traces of Smith are removed from the Matrix - and Smith can do nothing about it. I think that this is an excellent use of the story's own logic to end it all.
The Oracle poked both Neo and Smith into position to threaten the Machine City, forcing the Machines to need Smith's equal to do battle with him and provide the Source the chance to delete Smith. Both sides needed each other equally to defeat Smith, and both the Oracle and the Resistance gets what they want out of the deal - peace.
I'm also perfectly happy to take the Machines at their word. If you've watched The Second Renaissance Parts I and II on the Animatrix, it's fairly obvious that the Machines wanted a peaceful co-existance with their human creators, but we were the ones that couldn't stand to give equal rights and treatment to them. And after several large injustices, the Machines decided that we were a threat and had to be controlled. Since co-existance is what they wanted in the first place, it won't be the Machines that break the peace.
Obviously, I enjoyed the movie quite a bit. It does have flaws (Kid needed a short scene at the end of the movie to show that he'd grown out of his annoying phase) - I'd have like to have seen Neo follow up on his speech at the end of the first movie. But then, *how* would he show everyone a world without rules or boundaries? Fly around? Short circuit the Matrix? Bring it grinding to a halt like Smith did, and then broker a freedom with the Machines?
Perhaps - but then it wouldn't have changed the Machines' perception of humanity. I think that this ending did alter the Machines' perception of humanity. The truce felt very real to me. And while forcing the Machines' hand would have been more satisfying, it is encouraging to see an action movie teaching that violence doesn't solve everything.
quote:The problem is that people tend to put movies they like on pedestals. People like to pretend that their favourite movies are the best movies ever.
I believe this is also why everyone hates the Star Wars prequels.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Jar-Jar did it for me in the first one, and the stupid Sound of Music scene did it for me in the second one.
And it's not that Hayden is that much worse than Mark, it's just that he's trying harder and takes himself so seriously. It's physically painful for me to watch a few scenes in AotC.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
I thought that the plot was an interesting combination of the "savior" idea and the "reincarnation" idea. Over and over again, "All things come to an end" was emphasized. There is a beginning and an ending to everything. There was a beginning and end to the war and there will be a beginning and end to the peace, though it may be some completely different alliance of men and machines than before. When there is peace someone/thing evil will arise to start a war, and when there is a need for the hero he will arise to correct the imbalance.
I generally liked the movie, but I am always able to suspend disbelief while watching a movie. This is why I don't go see horror movies, I don't have good internal reflexes against them and I end up with nightmares.
I did have tears in my eyes at Trinity's death. She got a chance to say everything that people who have walked out of their front doors and gotten run over by a bus never had a chance to say to their loved ones. She was speaking it for everyone in Zion who died without getting a chance to say what they needed to.
I thought the parents and child program really emphazised the sentinence of the machines. What I am confused about is whether the sentinel squids were actually sentient or like a big toe of a greater sentinent machine. And is it the "machines" that are sentient or the "programs" that are sentinet or both.
Does it always take two parent programs to create a unique child? Along with the Indian family, it appears that John Smith was the Oracle's son, since that was what she called him before he assimilated her.
A bit I found out about the little girl's name from an Indian friend of mine. I'm not sure if it means a lot or a little, you never know with the Wachowskis and I don't want to read too much into it but here it is:
quote: Q: What does the name Sati mean, or does it? A: Sati has generally been the word for self-immolation that Hindu widows used to do upon their husbands death.
It could also be a variation on Satya, which means truth. I've not generally heard Sati as a girl's name.
So maybe they used it to mean ultimate self-sacrifice, or truth. *shrug*
posted
"Does it always take two parent programs to create a unique child? Along with the Indian family, it appears that John Smith was the Oracle's son...."
If I understand my Matrix mythology correctly, ALL the programs are metaphorically "children" of the Oracle and the Architect.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:One thing I don't understand is why the machines didn't just build a matrix where all the humans knew they were in it and the humans could make their world whatever they wanted it to be, I would defenitaly stay in the matrix if I was in it and if it was like that.
I had a similar idea. Humans should get a Matrix that approximate the real universe in every way (instead of just getting an Utopia). This way, there will be no functional difference between living in the Matrix and living in the "real world." (with the exception that they will turn the clock back to before earth was completely f*cked by the humans). This way, machines are happy (they get energy), humans are happy (they have their idea of free will and get to live in a nicer world) and the audience gets to debate the philosophical points.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd heard all the bad reviews, so was fairly worried going in.
After seeing it I'm of the opinion that:
a) most people just want happy-shiny well-wrapped movies where everything is resolved in neat little packages.
b) You can't trust 90% of people who have an opinion.
I enjoyed Revolutions immensely, the pacing was excellent, the emotional journey was rich and the conclusion satisfying.
I couldn't be happier.
So, did we just not see the same movie? One of my biggest problems with these sequels, beyond everything I listed above, is that it does cater to idiots by giving them a "happy-shiny well-wrapped [movie] where everything is resolved in neat little packages."
And the emotional journey was rich?
The thread's about the Matrix: Revolutions movie, dude. Which movie are you reviewing?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The one thing I liked about Matrix 3 was the exploration of the computer programs' free will. There were several computer programs which were on the verge of developing complete autonomy from the source (the Frenchman, Oralce, Smith, etc). The little girl was the first program that was created without a function and actually selected her own function within the Matrix (putting up sunrises or something). If each program starts picking what they want to do, how will the Source run things? This is kind of like the Borg ending, where Captain Picard left a trace of his individuality in the collective and caused havok within their society.
A few things that annoyed me about Matrix 3 *spoilers*
1. Stupid Humans. How can I care about the humans when their defensive strategy is so utterly idiotic? As someone else pointed out, their mech units had no protective armor. My Honda Civic can withstand more attacks than those units! And why, oh why, would they NOT HAVE INSTALLED EMPs IN ZION? I know it knocks out everything else, including the defense systems, but have you seen their defense systems? They could have their ships circle Zion in an orbit, and whenever the attacks get too hot, send one ship down and activiate an EMP. At least have one mother of all EMPs inside the temple to set off in case of absolute do-or-die emergency.
2. Stupid Machines: Those squid things are the dumbest things in the world. Those things have limited laser-cutters but no projective weapons.
3. Stupid Fight Scenes: Ending was a complete Dragonball knock-off, and not even a good one.
4. Stupid Trojan Horse Ending: That "twist" ending ranks right up there with Jeff Goldblum uploading a virus via his apple computer.
5. Stupid truce: I think the architect said that all the humans who wants to be freed will be freed. Does that mean Morpheus can still continue his rescue missions? Obviously the machines cannot release all humans, they need them for power! As for that crap about "honor", that is total insanity. According to the background story in animatrix, the machines were persecuted by the humans the way the Jews were by the Nazis. If the machines are willing to overlook all that because of Neo's tiny sacrifice of his life, then they do not deserve to survive.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
well i was pretty ambivalent about the movie, but i had a question to ask you... -how did smith and all the agents die? Like what made them disappear and neo die in the end. I couldnt figure it out, so someone please tell me! -How is that an ending? Neo defeats smith and saves zion, but the matrix still exists. Someone (im too lazy to look up who) said he gave the people a choice, but i dont get how he did that either. Some help plz?
Posts: 20 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The worst part about this move was that it made me stop liking reloaded. All the talk and ideas from reloaded weren't delivered on in the last chapter. I think its hilarious how many people seem to love this movie so much that they can't sit by while people dissect this movie and that their opinions or interpretations are the only ones that can possibly be taken form the film. In my opinion revolutions delivered as a straight action movie. I was intrigued and interested in the fighting scenes but as a conclusion to the the matrix triology i found it sorely lacking. How it all shook out made me stop even caring about the ideas and themes of the triology. When revolutions was over i just didn't care. I almost wish i was mad but instead i'm just indifferent now.
Posts: 17 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was a bit let down by this movie. I think I was a bit let down because it was different than I imagined it to be. Oh well......life goes on.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"how did smith and all the agents die? Like what made them disappear and neo die in the end. I couldnt figure it out, so someone please tell me!"
Neo is absorbed by Smith at the same time his physical body is connected to the Source; this essentially connects Smith to the Source, at which point the Source deletes him.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought it was just an average flick. Plot holes were truck worthy, but that's to be expected - Reloaded threw up way too many questions for the final film to answer.
But hey, it was a movie.
My housemate's favourite film of all time is End of Days. And he's a computer science / law student at the top university in Australia.
So, Eddie, one day you'll work out that people like different things for different reasons. What's more, *gasp*, not everyone who disagrees with you is a moron!
Whoa.
That said, I think what disappointed me most about Revolutions was that Neo missed a true comedic opportunity. When he faces off against Smith inside that old warehouse at the end, turns and does the little "Come hither" gesture... Why, Oh why, doesn't he say "I know Kung Fu, you know." Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
I enjoyed the action scenes. The fight between Smith and Neo intriguing to watch, the battle in the dock was spectacular, and the moment when Neo's and Trinity's ship burst out of the clouds into the sunlight was beautiful.
However, to enjoy this movie properly, I pretty much had to treat it as a completely different movie from the original Matrix. It has some of the same actors and premises, but it is not the same sort of story. Very little action takes place inside the matrix, Neo only gets to use his powers at the very end, and Morpheus is relegated to a minor role. The trainman/merovingian bit at the beginning of the movie seemed rather pointless, and I did not like the new Oracle as much as the old one (not that the Wachowskis could do anything about that problem...)
My overall opinion is that it's a decent movie, even moving at parts (the deaths of Trinity and Neo were cheesy sometimes, but touching). Don't expect it to be anything like the original movie. It's more eye candy than anything else, I think, but it's pretty good eye candy.
A few observations on the end of the movie: was it my imagination or was the greenish tint gone in the last scene? It seemed that the park was filmed in natural light without the dingy green look that's been a part of the matrix in the past. Also, if Sati made the sunrise, then perhaps her function is to create beauty--something that was not essential in the previous iteration of the matrix. She might not have been completely useless, but her purpose was not neccessary until the matrix was remade.
One final thought: do the people who were taken over by Agent Smith remember the experience? And if so, where are the machines going to get enough psychologists to deal with the humans' trauma?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
