posted
The first one at least had some element of mystery to it. Half of the fun of that movie was wondering what was going on and feeling the excitement as Neo discovers the amazing power he has. And sure, the philosophy in the first was still pretty shallow, but it was still there. The third one was pure action.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to second what the dude on the TV said today about this movie. "the most amazing special effects were Monica Bellucci's breasts." And yet the Wachowskis only have her in the movie for a few seconds with one lousy line? Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't even say "it was there." As far as I'm concerned, all three movies were great action flicks with magnificent cinematography. Nothing more. And I thoroughly enjoyed all of them Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: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!
I think that's a message that ought to go out to everyone on both sides of this fannish grudge match.
-
SPOILERS
Returning to my question earlier about why there're survivors. . . erm, why are there survivors? It seems improbable that Smith would have left anyone unconverted anywhere if he could help it. I mean, he can fly (and incidentally, where would he have gotten that from? We never see anyone else but Neo fly) and is pretty much invincible, so there'd be no place that'd be safe from him. Since all the Smiths exploded—though we only see this happening with Neo-Smith, we later also see that the streets, which used to be full of Smiths, are empty, so we can assume this happened to all of them—there ought to be no one left.
Ae, point is, Smith was nothing more than an agent before Neo go in him to make him explode, and in reality it just gave him some of Neo's powers, like the ability to fly. That's why the end - Smith vainquished by Neo because Smith went in him - is logical.
[ November 10, 2003, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that a great ending would have been if Bill suddenly wakes in his bed and says," Whoa, that was a totally excellent adventure."
Posts: 12 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
I watched "Rebloated" this weekend (again) on DVD with my son. We were looking through the TV screens in the Architect's room to see if we could catch any Bill & Ted shots. None so far...
What's all this concern over "flying"?!? It's not some genetic mutation we're talking about, here, like "Superman." The ability for a player in the Matrix to fly is purely a conceptual thing.
It's like typing in the "Fly" Code (which is "kjh3%m", BTW--try it!). If you accept the "fact" that you are in a super-fancy video game, then you can pretty much do what you want. It's like entering the God codes in DOOM. Which raises the issue of why the Agent's, and all the other "programs" can't do this right off the bat.
Neo has accepted the fact that the Matrix is just a hyped-up version of Donkey Kong, and so he can do all these cool things....
--Steve (and that's about as much analysis as I want to give to this Eye-Candy trilogy)
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
See, I assumed Smith died because he and Neo were opposite sides of the equation. It's like they were opposites, and so when they were added together, they equaled zero. Maybe I'm totally wrong, or maybe I just missed something.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon Boy - yes they were the opposite sides of an equation, but it doesn't mean that they annihilate eat other when they are absorbed. They came into contact plenty of times without doing so, and Smith tried to absorb Neo in the 2nd movie without blowing up.
While Smith was an agent, he could bend the rules the same as the other agent - exactly like all the other agents. But once he was freed, he became the Machine equivalent of the One, and could bend rules like Neo ("Bend it Like Keanu" anyone?)
The Oracle had something to do with Smith's new abilities, but I'm not sure exactly what - when the Oracle calls him a bastard, he replies, "You should know, Mom."
Neo, when he entered Smith, overwrote some of Smith's code with his own and prevented Smith from re-entering the Source for deletion. Smith gains the ability to self-replicate, and gains the programming of each program and person he overwrites as he does so.
Swallowing the Oracle gives him her ability to perceive the future. (When he meets the Oracle, he calls her "mom" because she is in a sense the "mother" of all the original Agents, with the Architect as the father.)
He has already gained control of the Matrix's back doors, and now needs only to access the Source to imprint himself on the entire thing. Ergo, he needs to absorb Neo.
I like to think that the Oracle, acting from within him, is able to prevent him from fully understanding the ramifications of absorbing Neo while Neo's physical body is plugged into the Source.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like my ending better. Agent Smith is a character in this big video game which has become sentient. The only way for the Sentient Godlike game to remain alive is to be played, so it locks some sap inside of the Agent Smith persona and creates Neo to stop Smith from winning the game.
It ends with Agent Smith removing his helmet revealing him to be Alex Winter(Ted from Bill & Ted) and cursing, "Wow man. I was this close to reaching the next level. That neo-dude is like totally rockin" as we hear the death gasps of the computer game in the background.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
i have not yet seen revolutions. when i came out of reloaded, instead of condemning it then, i decided to wait and see how they wrapped up. i respect all of the opinions i have heard, but after reading this, i feel better about spending the 8 bucks to see revolutions before it hits the cheap seats.
if you take the time to read through what this guy has to say, tell me, does it change your perspective at all?
Posts: 1090 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Reloaded and Revolutions work fine as movies, provided we do one thing first: we throw out Matrix.
The first movie, boiled down to its core, is a Hero's Quest. It's Anderson becoming Neo and learning enough about the bewildering world he finds himself in to take charge and provide hope. We're focused on a few key characters and we get to see them all develop. Great movie, great ending.
The second and third movies break away from that and turn it into a war movie, which of necessity has a lot of characters, but the main three (Morpheus, Trinity, Neo) are given short shrift. Had I not been given the promise of the first movie, I wouldn't have noticed.
It bothered me that Neo, a former hacker and computer programmer, stops trying anything new after he learns kung fu and how to fly. The way the first ended, I figured he'd go on to see what else he could do. He should have been able to adapt the Matrix for his own purposes, the way he softened a building for Trinity's helicopter to hit and caused the walls to bow in and out in the 1st movie. Instead he walks around and fights agents for fun while everyone else makes the decisions. Granted he knows nothing about wartime defense, but shouldn't he be trying to get into the code of the Matrix and fight it from within?
Morpheus is too strong a character to just be an "also starring" in the 3rd. The opportunity was there for some real acting. Everything he knows to be true, everything he'd based his life on was shown to be a trick. He seems a bit stunned, and then he's just backup with the occasional "I believe" statement. I wanted to see what happens when a powerful person's underpinning is pulled away, and I wanted to see his strength when he builds himself anew. Instead I got Niobe's hesitant co-pilot.
Trinity's death bugged me. Not that she died, but that it seemed so trivial (one review I liked complained that after being brought back from the dead, she died the next day in a damn car accident). She did an awesome job of piloting, but we needed something more from her, some sign that even the last second she was trying to get Neo there alive, no matter what happened to her. An example of what I mean can be demonstrated with the annoying pod race in Phantom Menace. I was expecting to see some sign that the kid had amazing piloting abilities, or that he subconsciously used the Force to aid him. Instead he basically did laps and didn't crash, for fifteen long minutes. I don't know enough about the race from the movie to realize how difficult it is to do whatever he's doing I need that little nudge from the director. Doesn't have to be obvious in an "over here, stupid" manner. Just something to let me know that suddenly, when all seemed lost, he was able to give an extra nudge that no one else could have. The five minute death speech just bugged me, as it does everytime it happens in movies. Could have been cut in half, or to a third, and been just as tear-jerking. Or - here's a kick - he could have sent her back to go on alone, and that would have left us the possibility of her being pregnant...
But Neo disappointed me the most. He grew in the first movie. He ran around in the second movie. And in the third movie he figured things out just a little too late each time, until the very end. As the Oracle said, "Not too bright, though." I wanted to see him show a little bit of ability beyond just being a software sponge.
I didn't have a problem with the plot, really. And I wasn't disappointed with the characters, but I was disappointed for them, and for the actors, who had the possibility but not the freedom to do so much more.
[ November 10, 2003, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked Revolutions. I keep hearing people complaining that it didn't fulfill the promise of the first movie, but with very few exceptions, I haven't heard what was so great about the first movie. Speed thought that the first movie was more emotionally moving, and Chris didn't like the change in format. I can accept both of those viewpoints. But I really just don't get why everyone thinks the first movie was some intensely awesome, thought-provoking thing.
The Matrix presented us with an interesting idea. When I left the theater, I was thinking that it was a bad-ass movie, the effects were amazing (and they were), and the story was cool. But it didn't exactly shake the foundations of my philosophical world. I mean, I had had "Did you ever wonder if the whole world is just a big computer simulation?" conversations before I even got to college and started trying drugs.
I'm not really the kind of person who goes into a movie and nitpicks. I'm not looking at the movie in such a way as to be able to find fault with stuff like that, because I'm not thinking about how I would have done it, I'm just letting the story happen, experiencing it. Certainly there are ways for a film to pull me out of the story, but most of the time if I'm able to nitpick, it's because I'm already not in the story.
Personally, I thought the emotional journey through the second and third movies worked. I think that they handled Neo's character well. The way he changed from just a guy into some superman, and how he had to deal with that later felt real to me. His relationship with Trinity helped him keep his link to his humanity, and I thought it was neither over- nor underdone. And when the characters were faced with the certain destruction of their world, I got caught up in that.
I kind of feel like a lot of people think that it's somehow bad to allow yourself to get emotionally involved with a movie like this. As though because the movie also has things to say about human nature, destiny, reality, and free will, that it's not also just a story about good people in a bad situation and what they do. It's not necessary to view the film on an intellectual level, and if you allow yourself to become immersed in the story, it works just fine on an emotional level.
Likewise, saying that it was "just an action movie" seems elitist to me. As if an action movie can't have anything to say about the topics I mentioned. I found the Indian program's conversation with Neo to be very interesting, if not terribly novel. But just because the questions it asks and the statements it makes are not new to me doesn't mean that they aren't there, and it doesn't mean that the questions can't be wrestled with.
I suppose I should revise my statement in my first paragraph. The Matrix may, indeed, have been thought-provoking for some people. Maybe the philosophical conundrum of that movie--what is real?--is deep for some people. It's also much easier to grasp than the philosophical conundrum of the second movie--what is free will and what is control?
And then there are the people who really just want an action movie, something like, I dunno, Predator or maybe Demolition Man. In that case, you have every right to be disappointed in the second and third movies, because that's not really what they were trying to be. Even so, I really think that if all you care about is action and FX, there was plenty of each in both Reloaded and Revolutions.
I dunno, maybe the first movie did shake up some people's worlds, and so if the second and third didn't, they have a legitimate complaint. I just don't see it.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something i've been wanting to comment on that a few people have expressed displeasure with is the change in Morpheus's role throughout the three movies. See, I didn't see that happening. Yes, i saw Morpheus go from being a huge character to not having a lot to do, but his role did not change in the least. He was Neo's mentor...he was the man, self-chosen, to introduce Neo to the Matrix and the real world and explain to him all the possibilities. Then, Neo used his teachings and ideas to become a new person. The student surpassed the teacher. It happens all the time. Neo learned what Morpheus had to teach, took that knowledge, and went crazy with it. What did he need Morpheus for, in the end? A father-figure? Hardly. He had emotional support from Trinity...really, if you want to think of it in more domestic terms -- Morpheus raised Neo, then Neo moved out, got a girlfriend, and found his own life path. That's life! Morpheus had served his purpose, just like (as people have pointed out) Trinity served her purpose in keeping Neo grounded and giving him his humanity. When neither of them were needed anymore, they stepped back. Morpheus helped out where he could, Trinity went with Neo as far as she could and yes, died. Of course everyone wanted to see Morpheus remain the kick-ass deep-voiced sunglass-wearing MATRIX GOD! that he was in the first movie. But that wasn't needed anymore. He didn't need to impress Neo, or be a source of inspiration. HE needed to step the heck back and let Neo, the one with the power, do his thang.
mmm....now i need to see the movie again!
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris makes some really interesting points.
I think he hit on what disappointed me most about the second two movies. Both just felt like they had so much unfulfilled potential for exploration. One friend of mine called the Dock scene "Starship Troopers meets Aliens" and I think this kinda captures it for me. It's not that I wanted something in particular from either Reloaded or Revolutions. Or maybe I did. I wanted to be surprised. I saw the first film knowing nothing about it at all and it surprised me. I didn't expect Neo to take the directions he did. I suppose I wanted him to keep exploring in the second and third films but he didn't. As Chris pointed out, he kinda just wandered around and did stuff - fighting agents in the second and running about just behind the 8 ball in the third. At the end of the first film we saw the Matrix as Neo saw it - glittering code that could be molded and modified. Why was this such a negligible factor in the next two films?
Anyway, yeah, I enjoyed both movies. I just didn't think they had the pizazz of the first one.
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually my problem wasn't that Neo surpassed Morpheus, it was that he didn't surpass him enough, and that Morpheus should have reacted to and rebounded from his entire worldview getting rocked with more... anything.
Neo just reacted in the 1st movie. He reacted and reacted and finally he turned and took a stand, he made the first move. In the 2nd he reacted, over and over, until he was goaded into a decision by the Architect.
In the 3rd movie he reacted, or just sat there. Finally he's given a vision - not because of any skills, but because the One gets these visions from time to time - and he finally acts on it.
You know what I would really have liked to see? Some clue that what Neo was before he was the One had something to do with him being the One. You know? I would have liked to have seen him use his programming skills, his hacking skills, his creative thinking, to work around some of the problems thrown at him instead of reacting just as he was led to. If he was going to approach the machine world he should have done it through the back door. No hacker uses the front. Unless the point was that the One could have been any old schlub, which is possible, there must have been a reason that Anderson was it. It couldn't have been courage or self-sacrifice, all of them had that. I wanted to see that reason.
[ November 10, 2003, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to nitpick, but what exactly should Neo have been able to do that he wasn't? He didn't soften any walls for Trinity in the first movie, and the only time he warped reality around him was when he was about to do the physically impossible (like jumping into an agent or taking off in flight).
When Neo was around after the first movie, they had little to fear of Agents as long as he told them when to take off. He regularly tested himself with Agents ("hmmm... upgrades"), but they were of less concern to him than finding out his Purpose in the world. In fact, he had all these cool powers, but he was more interested in finding out what he was supposed to do to save people from the machines. "What I'm supposed to do" was a huge theme throughout, moreso in the second two movies. Neo spent all three movies trying to figure out what he was supposed to do, and in the end, he had to choose to do it anyway... no kharma like with the programs.
And another thing: I see a lot of references about how he should have been able to completely alter reality in the Matrix, and most of that is based on programming or software references. How many people here write in any kind of programming language? Let me tell you, there are some incredible programming languages out there that invlove incredible levels on complexity and flexibility, but there are properties to all of them that keep them all bound to rules no matter what. In the films, just like in real programming, there were/are workarounds for many things, up to and including making it seem like you are doing much more that you really are. However, the humans in the film, just like all other beings in the Matrix, were still bound by rules. Within the realm of rules that were given in the films, Neo far surpassed anything imagined as far as abilities, but he still couldn't change the nature of the Matrix itself—that would require access to the (aptly named) Source. Without access to that, he could do all the god-like stunts he wanted, but he wouldn't be changing the nature of the Matrix. Also, he had to be careful with his super powers, because the "normal" people were far more frail than he. So, I don't get a lot of these expectations about what he was supposed to have been able to do, because these rules and explanations were made from the very beginning. It's why Neo wasn't super powerful in the Train station (though he probably would have figured out how to be), and why he never got hurt in any of the human constructs for practice in becoming this super-being. It's all about the rules. You can bend them and circumvent them in places, but to change the rules themselves, you have to have access to where those rules are made.
Another big gripe is the complaints about Neo as a character, and Neo and Trinity as a couple. For some reason, people didn't find their relationship very convincing. I found it totally convincing. In fact, I thought Trinity's love was admirable. Neo, even being the superhuman "messiah" he is, still had the one big problem of not feeling connected to the real world without Trinity. This showed in his clingyness within Reloaded, and right up to the death scene in Revolutions. Trinity, on the other hand, was not dependant on Neo, but still cared about him so much that she would enter a situation where death is almost assured, just because she cares about him. No offense to anyone who has ever loved me, but I doubt anyone has ever cared for me that much. Neo's dependancy, on the other hand, is what made him even more of the messiah with the clay feet. Well, that along with his constant uncertainty. He knew he was supposed to do something, but right up to the end, he didn't know what. Sure, you and I knew where it had to inevitably go, but the entertainment was in watching him learn it.
And Chris: he didn't have the visions spontaneously. Each vision happened when he was trying to "reach out" and do something with his power, usually without know how to do what he wanted (like in the train station). He was seeing the path to the source.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, that's a good point. Anderson was meant to be some hardcore hacker dude - so what happened to those smarts?
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No offense to hackers, but their skills have less to do with programming and more to do with being sneaky. On the "programmer food chain," hackers are usually on or near the bottom. I think Neo's biggest skill was not that he was some great hacker, but that he was good at manipulating what he did know and not get caught.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the 1st, when Trinity is leaping from the falling helicopter and Neo is hauling on the end of her line, the copter hits the building opposite and there's a long hesitation before the windows explode, long enough for Trinity to swing away. I'd always assumed that that was Neo's doing. And he didn't do any godlike stunts, or at least no new ones since the first movie. I didn't get any sense he was testing his abilities or the limits of the system, only that he was taking things as they happened to him. I didn't expect him to suddenly be able to rewrite reality. I did expect him to try, and maybe have some small successes. Maybe when he was sitting in the subway he was really straining with all his might, or throwing his intellect against the contraints of the system, but all I saw was a frustrated guy sitting there and getting flashes, the same way he got flashes last movie during dreams and sex.
This is why the movies were not what they could have been for me. Most of the truths given him, by the Oracle and others, were on the lines of "get off your butt and do something," and I was getting tired of waiting for him to try. I'm not trying to tell you why you shouldn't have enjoyed them, only why I left the theater vaguely disappointed. I don't expect to convince anyone to see things my way. I'm trying not to say what Neo did or didn't do, fro whatever reason, because that's up for grabs. This is what it seemed like to me, and either I'm not perceptive enough to pick up on the right things or the filmmakers didn't do a good enough job getting their ideas across, or a little of both.
[ November 10, 2003, 08:03 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Leto, you loved the movie. We all get that. Some people didn't think it was great. You're not going to prove that I am, objectively, incorrect in my feelings about the movie.
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw it today. It was definately better than the second, but the sequels were not nearly as good as the first. And the ending was still kinda weird. And some scened were really dragged out. But the fight for Zion was really cool. Posts: 4174 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
I thought it was easilly the best of all the three and a wonderful movie all around. The special effects and the characters only served to further the story. All the secondary characters came forward and had something to say.
I loved seeing a more human side to everyone: Morpheus, in a reversal from his role in the first film, relegated to a back seat because this is a time for the warriors, not the priests to do their thing.
Naiobi, Morpheus foil, brought forward as the Woman of Action, and not cast as the stereotypical, two-dimensional caricature of such a woman.
The machines, in their matrix manifestations, especially, shown to be sentient beings with their own wants and needs, and not faceless terminator drones with no purpose but to KILL KILL KILL. If you've seen the animatrix bits about how the man/machine war came about, it was much easier to see this. The little girl was a masterful touch to make them human.
The death scene was very sad and not overdone.
I loved the Macross(sp) bots. I think my little pipi got hard when they were all in formation. The Zion warriors were all that and a bag of chips.
Super film. I thought it was a great ending to a trilogy that has gone from good, to o.k., to great.
quote:Another big gripe is the complaints about Neo as a character, and Neo and Trinity as a couple. For some reason, people didn't find their relationship very convincing. I found it totally convincing.
Well, I found it convincing, but not in the least bit interesting. Okay, I can believe they're madly in love, but they're still dead boring. The only times we ever see them interact, they're kissing or humping. Either that or brooding about Important Matters. Don't they ever quarrel? Don't they talk about anything other than their relationship and how Neo's going to save humanity? The relationship itself ("I love you, you love me, big whoop") is real enough, but the characters involved in it are cardboard.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
if you're involved in a war to save humanity you don't have much time to fight about trivial things, let alone chat about the new episode of Friends or how Jimmy cheated on Sarah with that slut Courtney.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I posted my thoughts before actually reading over the entire thread, and I just want to point out that I think people are trying to cram real world logic into story logic. For instance, the exoskeletons. Why have the people inside them exposed as they were? Shouldn't they be armored? Well, in real world logic, sure. However, I don't think armoring the fighers would have worked nearly as well in the movie.
By exposing the people in the exo-skeletons to the swarm of hunter-seekers, the audience is brought to feel the pressing danger that the humans face from the machines that much more keenly. One of the scenes shown often in the dock was that of a fighter facing down a swarm, certain death, gun-fighter style. Nothing between him and certain death but his skill with his weapons. What is the emotion, the conflict, that the directors are working for in that scene? I think they were working towards fear, danger, nervousness by potraying the humans as desperately fighting to save themselves at any cost. We can see the facial expressions of the Zion warriors much more effectively with open exoskeletons. We can share in their danger. Such would not have been the case with armor.
Other things like this are throughout the movie. People bitch about the 'bad science' of using humans as power sources. Well, it might be bad science, but by binding the humans and machines together, it works wonderfully well as allegory and as a plot device, don't you think?
posted
I see alot of people complaining about how this movie (and reloaded) don't live up to the first movie. Well of course they don't. How could they? The First movie was such a shocking idea, a totally new and unique alternate future. I remember thinking, "hey this movie looks interesting" but not really having any expectations. I certainly was not expecting the movie I saw. I think most people went into it with that frame of mind, and we were all totally blown away.
So how do you top that?
You can't, but you can continue on and I think the Brothers did a great job of continuing the story. The Matrix is only the beginning for Neo, and the rest of us. But remember the War has been going on for a long time. So those people who say this just turned into a typical Sci/Fi war flick, well... yea, because that's what the entire story is about. It is a war between man and machine and I love all three movies. I just watched revolutions last night and I really enjoyed it. It was everything it should have been.
Posts: 1294 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just want to point out that I think people are trying to cram real world logic into story logic.
Shocking!
I mean, really, a storyteller who cannot tell the story he wants to without having his characters do patently stupid things—like having them operate huge engines of destruction all-but unprotected for no apparent reason—that's lazy storytelling, pure and simple. It's not like I went into Revolutions looking for things to hate, but willing suspension of disbelief only goes so far.
quote:Other things like this are throughout the movie. People bitch about the 'bad science' of using humans as power sources. Well, it might be bad science, but by binding the humans and machines together, it works wonderfully well as allegory and as a plot device, don't you think?
There are other ways of achieving this. I believe one of the theories floating about was that the machines really kept the humans around because the machines were unable to dream (and so on), and so hoped to pierce the veil of humanity by studying them (with Neo and Smith playing into this, of course). That would have been even more interesting than this somewhat obvious image of symbiosis.
That said, I'm not one of the people who had a problem with this particular plot hole.
beatnix19:
quote:The First movie was such a shocking idea, a totally new and unique alternate future.
Not really, no.
quote:So how do you top that?
You can't, but you can continue on and I think the Brothers did a great job of continuing the story.
Or you can quit while you're ahead.
quote:So those people who say this just turned into a typical Sci/Fi war flick, well... yea, because that's what the entire story is about.
And whose fault is that? Stories aren't like buried treasure you just stumble upon fully-formed. Writers make them up inside their heads; and if "what the entire story is about" is "a stypical Sci/Fi war flick", that's the writers' fault.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Stories aren't like buried treasure you just stumble upon fully-formed. Writers make them up inside their heads; and if "what the entire story is about" is "a stypical Sci/Fi war flick", that's the writers' fault.
I made this comment about the new star wars movies and I think I'll make it hear too. Yes the writer is to "blame" for the direction, creativity, originality, etc... of a movie. BUT... because the writer wrote the movie, that movie is then, in my opinion, art. As an artist the writer can do what ever he wants to his artwork. We are only spectators. We like it or we dislike it. To me it's that simple.
I was entertained by the movies, therefore, in my opinion, they were successful. Are there parts that were weak? sure. Can I, after the fact, come up with directions I would rather have seen the movies go? Probably. Could I have done a better job of writing reloaded or revolution. No way. These are not my ideas, these are not my stories. They were told by the people who invisioned them, in the way that they saw fit.
So... go to the theater or rent a movie and watch it. If you like it, good. If not, well, that's ok too, just go and find something else you like better. When you buy art work for your walls do you pick up a picture and say this could be better here, here, and there or do you walk by that picture and pick up the one you like? Same for movies, just walk on by.
Now saying this I must make the point that for me it really is that simple. I realize that some poeple commit way too much into the art we call movies. The bottom line is they are meant to entertain not bring about world peace. Every body just take a deeep breath and go about your day.
Posts: 1294 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:When Neo was around after the first movie, they had little to fear of Agents as long as he told them when to take off. He regularly tested himself with Agents ("hmmm... upgrades"), but they were of less concern to him than finding out his Purpose in the world. In fact, he had all these cool powers, but he was more interested in finding out what he was supposed to do to save people from the machines. "What I'm supposed to do" was a huge theme throughout, moreso in the second two movies. Neo spent all three movies trying to figure out what he was supposed to do, and in the end, he had to choose to do it anyway... no kharma like with the programs.
Exactly. In the end, it wasn't about what he could do with the Matrix; it was about what he was willing to do for the Matrix and for everyone else. It's just like in Return of the Jedi. In the end, Luke doesn't save the galaxy with his amazing Force powers. He saves the galaxy by having love for the one person who did have the power to save the galaxy.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
ae, I think my explanation for why the exoskeletons as they are designed works towards a better story, a better movie, isn't contradicted by your response.
As much as it pains me to say it, I think Leto is right in saying that at some point you have to go with what a movie gives you and not second guess it. Why didn't the humans hunker down behind big bunkers where they would have had maximum cover for their fire? That would have been the logical thing to do, but it wouldn't have worked on an emotional and visual level as well, I think.
I do believe that to some degree the suspension of disbelief is a personal choice and to another degree is one that is facilitated by the movie, or the art. If the suspension of disbelief doesn't happen, whose fault is it? The artist's or the viewers? It's a question that I don't have an answer for.
I respect your feelings about the movie, though, and certainly am not saying mine is the 'correct' way to view it. It does make me sad that people didn't see the same movie I did, because I really liked the one I saw.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I think I saw the movie you did. I'm glad other people can take it for what it is.
I agree that everyones opinion is valid and mine by no means is the right one. It's just right for me.
Fortunately my opinion allows me to enjoy movies for what the are, 2 hour diversions from real life. This is why I'm such a big fantasy/Sci Fi fan, the real world gets dull and boring and painful from time to time, but I can allways escape for a quick breather in a book or good movie. Suspending disbelief is automatic for me because thats why I'm watching in the first place.
Posts: 1294 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't seem to find a soundtrack like the ones that came out for the first two (as in, not the score to the movie, but songs).
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't been able to find one either...I'm guessing they couldn't get the artists that contributed to the first movie to come up/find a song that would work for both albums (i.e. be new enough to the general public).
Posts: 753 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
The first part was slow, and you guys were right--the Neo-hero-worshipping guy was annoying. Some of the dialogue was a little corny. But aside from that...loved it. Absolutely loved it.
I'm glad I read these reviews, or I'd have had to think long and hard about how Smith lost before figuring it out.
I am pretty sure Neo is alive. At least, he was the last we saw of him. Who else would be the viewpoint character for seeing the machine city as glowing light?
I believe I understand how the peace thing works. Look at the massive amount of resources the machines must have devoted to all those squid, and to their defenses around the city. Surely that wasn't how they actually wanted to devote the energy they're getting. Though, after seeing how they tore through the human city I don't see why they would feel the need. I can only assume that, irrational as it seems, they were afraid.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's just like in Return of the Jedi. In the end, Luke doesn't save the galaxy with his amazing Force powers. He saves the galaxy by having love for the one person who did have the power to save the galaxy.
That's a great analogy in that Return of the Jedi also sucked. Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes the writer is to "blame" for the direction, creativity, originality, etc... of a movie. BUT... because the writer wrote the movie, that movie is then, in my opinion, art. As an artist the writer can do what ever he wants to his artwork. We are only spectators. We like it or we dislike it. To me it's that simple.
Erm, yes, it is essentially that simple. But why should this prevent us as spectators from expressing why we like or dislike certain things about the movie? I mean, it'd be pretty boring if all the exchanges on this thread went:
"I liked it."
"So did I."
"I didn't."
"Neither did I."
"Oh. Too bad."
Not much point to discussing anything in that case.
quote:I realize that some poeple commit way too much into the art we call movies. The bottom line is they are meant to entertain not bring about world peace.
Now look here, who are you to tell us that we "commit way too much into the art we call movies"? Furthermore, who are you to tell us what movies are for? I may disagree with your take on Revolutions, but I'm not going to tell you that you're approaching it with the Wrong Attitude. One's relationship with art of any kind is a personal thing, and there's no objective yardstick by which we can measure people's emotional investment in art and declare that it's too much or too little or just right.
Storm:
quote: I think my explanation for why the exoskeletons as they are designed works towards a better story, a better movie, isn't contradicted by your response.
What it comes down to is that it makes for a better story and a better movie if the viewer can swallow the logical inconsistencies that come with, and a worse story and a worse movie if the viewer can't. Ultimately it is all subjective, true.
quote:Why didn't the humans hunker down behind big bunkers where they would have had maximum cover for their fire? That would have been the logical thing to do, but it wouldn't have worked on an emotional and visual level as well, I think.
It could be made to work, surely. And if it doesn't, it isn't an either-or proposition; there are third and fourth and fifth alternatives. Endless alternatives. The good storyteller chooses the one that works on all levels. The second-rate storyteller cannot find one.
quote:I respect your feelings about the movie, though, and certainly am not saying mine is the 'correct' way to view it. It does make me sad that people didn't see the same movie I did, because I really liked the one I saw.
I respect yours, too. Ultimately what I find most baffling is people ripping on other for not liking the same things they do.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
ae, it's too late for me to reply to your post the way I need to. I've tried to make a short, concise reply , and I just can't. Suffice to say that I don't know that I agree that there is always a way that logic and art can coexist equally.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
In case I wasn't clear, I don't mean to say that art must conform to all our real world laws, but that it ought to be internally consistent, and having battle suits which offer the user next to no protection in a world which seems to obey most of our world's laws (the relevant one being that if a sharp metal implement is trying to get cosy with your internal organs, it is best to have something in between you and it) is a minor but, for me, jarring example of an internal inconsistency.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
perhaps I was a bit hash, maybe i should have said "some people invest much more than I do into movies" I certainly did not mean to imply that discussion was pointless or wrong. In fact I really enjoy reading what people have to say about a film or book. Sometimes it just seems that some people get too upset when a movie dosn't turn out the way the wanted. I guess thats why I kind of vented earlier.
Posts: 1294 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sometimes it just seems that some people get too upset when a movie dosn't turn out the way the wanted.
There's a difference between having a strong opinion on something and getting upset about it. Just speaking for myself, I feel strongly that Revolutions sucked, but it isn't a big deal to me. It is, in fact, just a big enough deal that I'll argue about it with people on the internet. I don't think that's excessive, do you?
quote: It is, in fact, just a big enough deal that I'll argue about it with people on the internet. I don't think that's excessive, do you?
No, I don't. In fact I've had fun the last couple of days "discussing" our opinions. I realize I've come off kind of like a big mouth idiot but, well... I guess I can often be a big mouth idiot. So, I hope no offense was taken because none was meant. I still stand by my opinions that movies sometime take on a life bigger than they really are meant to have, but that is also part of the fun of movies. In fact the article listed in this thread is a perfect example of how successful the matrix has been, maybe not in the way we expect but successful none the less.
Posts: 1294 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, ae, I don't get what you're saying. At first it sounds like you are saying we can and should disagree with each other and debate each other's opinions on movies because otherwise it'd be boring and not much of a discussion. But then you say that you shouldn't act like the other person is actually wrong because the experience is so personal.
On what grounds can we argue, then?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
