The Matrix - POST ALL MATRIX-RELATED DISCUSSION HERE

[Las Naranjas]

All that is true, but useless in pointing out except pursuing deconstructive post modernism.

Just take everything as subjective sure, but argue remixors arguments on their merits, just like we should judge a film by it's merits. If we were to complain that something was subjective, we may as well descend into solipsism.



I saw The Matrix before I knew of the hype that surrounded. my first reaction was laughter since on first impression I found the dialogue hilariously stilted and the CGI scenes quite gratuitous at times (The building rippling before it exploded had me in stitches).

That was followed by some disturbance the next day when I saw a documentary on the Columbine massacre.

Computer Nerds in trenchcoats shooting people didn't seem as funny anymore

[remixor]

Just to clarify, my first point was that art is subjective, but the only way you could possibly guage something's quality would be a consensus from everyone who's ever viewed it. If you personally think The Matrix sucked, then that's minus one point for The Matrix.

I understand that's what you meant, but I still think it's a poor way of judging something's artistic merit.  It acts on the assumption that everybody in the world has the same understanding and appreciation of film (or theatre, or literature, or art), which is a patently ludicrous idea.  You can measure success or popularity that way, but not quality as you say.  Popularity is by no means equivalent to quality.

My second point was to try and form your opinions solely from the artwork as it is. If you were to watch The Matrix in an alternate dimension where it had no hype whatsoever, you'd most likely rate it better than you think you would. I realize it's nigh impossible to view every film you see while completely forgetting what you've heard about it, or to not compare it to other films, but I'm certain that your opinion of a film is better off purely yours and purely of the film. If that makes any sense at all.

Again, I understood your meaning the first time, and for the third time I will state that my opinions were mine, and were not influenced by other people.  I already explained the circumstances in my last post.  Your point indeed makes sense, but in this case it doesn't apply.  I guess there's no way to make you trust me on this, but I have a slightly better frame of reference where my own opinions are concerned, and I try to be pretty objective about any biases I may have.

[TheYak]

In a court of law, there are some precepts that are such merely because "a reasonable person would agree/disagree."   I think the judging of movies is done on a similar level.  There are no set rules to gauge a movie by.  There isn't a benchmark that we can test it with.  You can't judge a movie solely by the amount of CG it uses or does not use.  You cannot state that a movie is horrible because it was too thought-provoking and had no entertainment value without accepting that this is your opinion.  

This is all we can do in the forums, each can state their opinion.  Others can agree or refute those opinions but with their agreement/disagreement must realize that it's their opinion as well.  I, personally thought the movie was worth the $6.75 I paid.  I took my wife to it and enjoyed her company as well.  I heard/saw no hype concerning this movie as I am only as exposed to the media as I wish to be (for the most part).  I knew the movie was coming out a few months ago.  I knew it was out the day before I saw it.  I, personally, prefer to see a movie without having seen a preview (in much the same manner that I prefer to read a book without reading the summary usually printing in the jacket or on the back).  The best I can do as far as this topic goes is to break the movie down into various categories and rate them separately.  

Acting: 3/5  -Nothing sensational but nothing that evoked a great deal of emotion, Morgan Fr eemanis showing his acting limitations in his old age and Keanu is nothing but acting limitations.  Nonetheless, it got the job done well enough and was nowhere near as bad as some movies I've seen.

Special Effects: 4/5 - Some gratuitous SFX and some that were incorrect or made the movie look worse.  I wouldn't mind seeing a "making-of" featurette.  I am biased in this category because I dabble with 3d and thus appreciate the time and knowledge that goes into it.

Plot: 3/5 - Not the best, not the worst but it did fit the Matrix style as well as can be expected.  Even if it was skimpy, I'll still take its plot over that of Master of Disguise, Final Encounter, Ballistics: Ecks vs. Sever, or a host of other movies that don't seem to bother with hiring a writer and just make it up as they go along.

Skill/Stunts: 4/5 If acting ability is determined by body language and the delivery of lines, this category is meant to address an actor's agility, endurance, physical prowess and grace.  Yes, CG was often used where unnecessary, but a good deal of those stunts took precise timing and sheer strength delivered by the actors.

Soundtrack: 4/5 This encompasses background ambience, music, sound effects, etc.  Though I'm not much of a techno fan, I found the music suited to the movie. The sound effects were well-done for the most part (I wish more movies would adopt the punching-noise philosophy of fight-club though).  The ambient noise generated by machinery, liquids and wind were all appropriate to the scenes.

So, I guess I'd rate the movie, on average, as slightly above mid-range.    God, I've gotten way too wordy and analytical with this one.

Edit: I originally said SL Jackson when I was thinking of Morgan Freeman, damn it all to hell, it was 4 AM

[Barcik]

...S.L. Jackson is showing his acting limitations in his old age...

S.L. Jackson? He isn't in that movie!

[evenwolf]

Haha, give him a break- you know he meant Morgan Freeman afterall.  Samuel L isn't THAT old.

[Trapezoid]

I understand that's what you meant, but I still think it's a poor way of judging something's artistic merit.  It acts on the assumption that everybody in the world has the same understanding and appreciation of film (or theatre, or literature, or art), which is a patently ludicrous idea.  You can measure success or popularity that way, but not quality as you say.  Popularity is by no means equivalent to quality.

No, measuring a film's popularity would involve finding out how many people saw it. If you subjected 10000 people to every film ever made and then had them rank them (hypothetically of course, this is impossible), you can't deny that the overall result would be much more accurate than if you only used one person.
IMDB.com has a top 250 movies list. It may not be completely accurate (the Star Wars films don't belong so high), but it's certainly a better representation than my own personal list (I really like The Princess Bride...) The Matrix is number 30-something on IMDB, so your dislike of it is obviously just yours. Nobody's going to direct films designed to please a single person that they've never met.

Edit: By the way, I don't really have a problem with you complaining about the movies. I just feel like complaining about critics. I mean, doesn't it annoy you when you're reading a bunch of reviews for a movie, and they're all very positive, and then you find one negative review that insists you avoid the movie at all costs.

[Adamski]

In conclusion:

[wOoDz]

(the Star Wars films don't belong so high),

you kinda had to be there to realize how big star wars was at the time, it pushed sci fi movies out of the stone age,  in respect more people went to movies in those days and the ques where unreal, funny but i watched the first one today granted its the revamped version but it still looks good

i wander if in 25 years time will people remember the matrix?

woodz

[TheYak]

Maybe we should turn this into a movies in general thread.  That seems to be the way it's going.  My kids and wife went to see Finding Nemo today.  I haven't actually seen the movie but it's a delightful underwater fantasy with some clever kid-humor with a joke or two made a little more subtle for adults' taste.  My one real problem with it.. I think CGI was a tad overused in this film, it looks so fake.  

[m0ds]

* m0ds thinks .oO( Matrix: Reloaded ... pretty boring movie. )

m0ds

[Las Naranjas]

It's quite ironic that you say Star Wars "pulled Sci Fi films out of the stone age" since it never at anytime pretends that it's doing anything but adopting the most primitive of Sci Fi such as the Space Operas of the 1930's, and the Buck Rogers serials. After a period during which Science Fiction as cinema was considering itself to create philosophical thought (2001, Soylent Green, Planet of the Apes, Rollerball et al, all preceding Star Wars) Lucas returned it to the levels of Good and Baddies in space, in the mode of E. E Smith and Buck Rogers. At the time, before a quarter century of hype deluded his own mind, Lucas made no bones about the fact he was making a film for entertainments sake, based on what entertained him in his youth. Similarily he devised the basis for the purely entertaining Indy films based on the old Adventure Serials.

Star Wars actually pulled Sci Fi back into the stone age, and the realm of Fantasy by consciously using the plot structures which had been evident in storytelling since, well, perhaps even the literal stoneage.

It was thus made more accessable to the greater audience by taking the aesthetics of Sci Fi rather than the themes which naturally confined it to a smaller clique.

[DGMacphee]

First off all, it wasn't Morgan Freeman or SL Jackson in The Matrix!!!

It was Sidney Poitier!!!

Secondly, Star Wars had it's merits and fallbacks.

It was fun film and it revitalised Hollywood's economy.

However, it destroyed quality filmmaking -- especially sci-fi as Las pointed out.

Once producers found that you could make millions from a goodies vs baddies blockbuster (or "comic book movie" to borrow a term from WIlliam Goldman), they all jumped a carriage on the money train.

Before that, you had butt-kicking sci-fi films.

Especially Lucas's earlier works like THX-1138.

What about other intelligent or socially important films like 2001: ASO, Planet of the Apes, A Clockwork Orange, The Andromeda Strain, or Invasion of the Body Snatchers?

In fact, go several decades in the past and you'll find one of the greatest sci-fi gems ever: Metropolis.

Did Star Wars do anything great for sci-fi?

Not really -- It did more for "blockbuster" movies.

But back on topic, does the Matrix do anything good for sci-fi?

My opinion: Yes -- But it's a very small step in the right direction.



Incidently, speaking of sci-fi, blockbusters, etc --Narangas, we were talking about NGE earlier in this thread and I found out they're making a live action Eva movie.

I'm very disappointed -- Hollywood just can't leave anything sacred.

[Las Naranjas]

* Las Naranjas vomits

[DGMacphee]

Took the words right out of my mouth...  

[Las Naranjas]

And the rest of the technicolour rainbow.

--edit--
Also, I was wondering the other day what exact percentage of the series is made up of that background of NERV, with the topgraphical 3d model with two layers etc which is panned accross at the beginning of every attack.

[remixor]

Live action NGE?  That's utterly disgusting.  I'm not even a big anime fan but I think that series is fantastic.  That's really disappointing news.


DGM: I agree about Metropolis.  That film blew me away.  I got the chance to see it in a theatre during a screening at my university last semester.  I can't believe what Fritz Lang did, especially considering the limitations of the era.  Great film.


And are you sure it was Sidney Poitier in The Matrix?  I could have sworn it was Denzel Washington.  

[Las Naranjas]

I was refering to whoever it was in Star Wars ep 1 and 2.

Apparently no-one here can tell black actors apart (unless they're Gary Coleman or Mr T).

[remixor]

Las: we were referring to YakSpit's post earlier.

[Las Naranjas]

I thought he was refering to a post refering to a post refering to mine.

Or something.

[remixor]

No, he was referring to the quality of Keanu Reeves and "SL Jackson"/"Morgan Freeman"'s acting in The Matrix.