TCTTS said:
Honestly, parts of this reminded me of that movie throughout.
TCTTS said:
Honestly, parts of this reminded me of that movie throughout.
Quad Dog said:
Just got out of this with my son. My 12 year old loved it. Made for an interesting back to back movie day with him after Spider-Man yesterday. Random thoughts:
- It was definitely a Matrix movie: kung fu, gun battles, slow-mo with water falling down, tons of nonsense techno babble and feaux philosophy, not paying a ton of attention to plot.
- Could have use just maybe 5 more minutes of exposition on the different factions within the machines, why Trinity and Neo were so important to the new Matrix, and how Trinity and Neo were remade.
- I assumed that in the process of rebuilding Neo and Trinity their DNA and thus powers were mixed together Jurassic Park style. Again a bit more exposition could have helped that.
- I don't remember anything in the soundtrack blowing me away like the first Matrix did. That soundtrack was huge. However, great use of Go Ask Alice.
- Has a major movie ever used that many clips from previous movies before? At times it felt like a clip show from a sitcom.
- Towards the end it turned into a Matrix heist move, which I was in for and this movie should have leaned into. Then it turned into a Matrix zombie movie with the "bot swarm" which was cool for a short time, glad they didn't drag that on too far.
- Both Keanu Reeves and Carrie-Ann Moss looked great.
- NPH was great. He does slightly creepy and sinister while pretending to be wholesome so well.
Quote:
Overall, it was enjoyable and certainly better than 2 and 3.
TCTTS said:
It's been just over 24 hours, and for the life of me I absolutely cannot remember what happened to "Smith"/Jonathan Groff's character. I remember him showing up at Simulatte in the third act, screwing over the Analyst in some way (I think?), and then... nothing. This movie is already fading from my memory...
TCTTS said:
I totally get people enjoying/tolerating this movie, having fun with it, not overanalyzing it, etc. But I've noticed on Twitter and elsewhere that we've officially reached the "It was SUPPOSED to be bad!" point of the discourse. Where so many of the movie's "high-minded" defenders/film snobs are trying to say that the way it looks (like ass), the bad action, the convoluted plot, etc, is all on purpose, because that's what Lana Wachowski intended as some kind of meta commentary on franchise film-making, the studio system, nostalgia, etc. While I agree that there is indeed an intentionality in making this entry look/feel different from the original trilogy, and that some of those choices *are* in fact a form of commentary, otherwise smart people are taking their defense of this thing to ridiculous lengths. It's almost farcical at this point, as if making a bad movie is some kind of genius/master stroke that the rest of us morons just aren't grasping. It almost feels like the opposite of Idiocracy or something.
TCTTS said:
Like I said, much of the commentary you're mentioning is obviously intentional. That's not what I'm getting at, though. I'm specifically talking about people defending how *bad* the movie is, as if its incompetence on multiple levels was an intentional decision, and a genius one at that.
TCTTS said:
I would be willing to bet just about anything that Lana Wachowski not only made the exact film she wanted to make, but likely had final cut approval worked into her contract. She's far too revered at Warner Bros for them to force anything on her. She's responsible for one of the most popular and influential movies ever made, and almost assuredly wouldn't have come back to the franchise without various stipulations giving her complete creative control. That, and the other credited writers are writers she chose to work with, from the jump (who have worked with her on past projects), since her sister opted out of collaborating with her this go-around.
After he delivered Anna back to Arrendelle to reunite with Hans, he realized that even though he had earlier scoffed at someone falling in love with a stranger in the course of one day, he had done that exact same thing and raced back astride Sven the Reindeer to tell Anna his true feelings.TCTTS said:
It's been just over 24 hours, and for the life of me I absolutely cannot remember what happened to "Smith"/Jonathan Groff's character. I remember him showing up at Simulatte in the third act, screwing over the Analyst in some way (I think?), and then... nothing. This movie is already fading from my memory...
I definitely don't think it was supposed to be a "bad" movie. I also don't think it cares if people view it as a bad movie, if that makes sense?TCTTS said:
Like I said, much of the commentary you're mentioning is obviously intentional. That's not what I'm getting at, though. I'm specifically talking about people defending how *bad* the movie is, as if its incompetence on multiple levels was an intentional decision, and a genius one at that.
MBAR said:I definitely don't think it was supposed to be a "bad" movie. I also don't think it cares if people view it as a bad movie, if that makes sense?TCTTS said:
Like I said, much of the commentary you're mentioning is obviously intentional. That's not what I'm getting at, though. I'm specifically talking about people defending how *bad* the movie is, as if its incompetence on multiple levels was an intentional decision, and a genius one at that.
TCTTS said:
Ah, yes. He became "anyone." Weird that they didn't give him a proper ending, though. They basically just moved past that whole thing once Neo and Trinity were on the rooftop, and didn't touch on it again.