KS u owe me an apology!

rdhull said:

Put him on the list!

There is no way to EVER watch a movie with "no bias." That's impossible. Yes, I had expectations. From what/where? The first film. I didn't set them astronomically high, but I still expected a well-written movie. I got 20 minutes of good movie, surrounded by dung.

I won't apologise in this case, given how quickly you put words in my mouth (or keyboard, as it is).

KingSausage said:

I did not put owrds in your mouth..I said your view was tainted..and it was..be honest KS!

do the right thing

rdhull said:

You implied previously that I lacked common sense and was irrational. Re-read your posts. I don't understand why yor defense of this movie can't go beyond "oh, you're just a victim of high expectations and too much hype." That's bullshit, my friend. It would be equally invalid and foolish for me to say, "You LIKED that movie? Oh man...you clearly were gullible and believed all the hype." But you'll notice I'm not making any such claims. Rather, I've illustrated actual points of criticism. Things that have nothing to do with hype.

My view is tainted? By what -- my opinions? My honest feelings about the movie? Why can't you grasp the fact that I didn't give a fuck about the hype, didn't expect the best movie ever, didn't plan on naming all of my kids 'Neo' after the first movie, yet still did NOT like Matrix Reloaded? Is that too difficult to wrap your mind around? The fact that someone could POSSIBLY not like that weak movie for reasons other than hype or other overused excuses? Are you going to say that for ANYTHING that someone dislikes for now on? You didn't like your salad...perhaps you were too hyped for it...


The only thing tainted here is your logic, and your unwillingness to actually discuss this movie instead of trying to leap inside of my brain a week ago in the theater. Of course I had "bias" and "expectations." Such is human. Did you NOT have bias and expectations? Aren't your views tainted? What if I thought that your opinions were bullshit because you "clearly" went into the movie expecting to like it, thus are now totally unable to look at it "objectively?" Wouldn't that seem like weak reasoning to you?

Name me one person whose views are pure and absolutely untainted. YOU CAN'T. Thus, that line of reasoning is irrelevant to this conversation. And even if I said that my views WERE tainted, would it change the real criticisms that I outlined above? Is this making sense to you? Discuss the movie with me; don't give me bullshit about hype and expectations.

It isn't like I was on this site for the last four months saying nothing but "The Matrix is going to rule" and "I got a picture of Trinity tattooed onto my ass."

waiting

damn G, at least change the emoticon for the freeway scene and trenchcoat at least

so I gues this means no apology then eh?

rdhull said:

The highway scene was terrific, as I have acknowledged. Now, assuming that my views are "tainted" and that I am a sorry victim of "high expectations and hype," does it mean that the highway scene was in fact NOT cool? And that I only thought so because of the hype? There's a double standard here that has you in its grip...People who like the movie have opinions that are valid. People who disliked it are full of shit, tainted in their views, and just can't get over their own expectations. Can you see this double standard? If so, can you adequately rationalize it? If you can't admit that double standard, then I am done with our conversation, and will continue discussing this movie with people who can actually talk about the film itself.

Don't give me that "I'm waiting" shit either. I'm posting as time goes by & I have a chance. This is a message board; it's how these things work. Trying to play it off like I'm a coward sulking in the corner is bullshit.

rdhull said:

Of course not. There has been no demonstrated need for me to apologize. For what? Calling people presumptuous and lacking common sense and irrational just because they express their honest opinions of a movie DOES sort of match my description of someone who might strangely, and out-of-character, be acting somewhat like a "jackass" in this case.

wtf?..man..chill. Im only fuckin around on that part geezus (its not obvious?)

One..I never said anyones views that did not like the movie was tainted..I meant that most views against it that were spoken here on it WERE tainted as in taking sides etc...its quite obvious . Hello!@I mean come on...are you going to say that a lot of the venom spoken was not a product of that? Honestly? Im not talking about any hype shit either...throw that theroy and explanation of what Im saying out the window. And Ive stated that th emovie was flawed and agreed with some who spoke of its flaws..but someover zealouis shit decrying it reeks of bullshit .Point fucking blank. Look at the begavtive views and how they all bust blood vessel(sp?). So are you going to at least change the thumbs emoticon or not?

KingSausage just saved me Eight Bucks!


Miss your posts KS, you rock!

Where I draw the line is this: If the movie is about "the one" who will save Zion, and Neo is neither "the one" and when he has a chance he chooses not to save Zion, why the fuck do I care about him.

dumbass said:

But isn't this the "twist in the tail" that makes the third installment worth waiting for? (isnt it worth dieing for?...lol )

Thanks...I thought it was a terrible movie, but it could have been even worse. It certainly doesn't detract from my fondness for the first movie, and won't prevent me from seeing the third. I will give the folks behind these films the benefit of the doubt, and hope that the third movie is satisfying.

Speaking of The X-Men, I HIGHLY recommend checking that movie out. It's been a long, long time since I found a movie franchise that I enjoyed so much. Well, aside from LOTR that is. But that's a given. Look at the strength of the dialogue and characters in X-Men, and compare it to The Matrix. There's a big difference.

The writers of X-Men clearly know how to write a captivating story...how to take something as cheesy as comic book mutants and make it fresh and relevant in today's jaded world. The writers of The Matrix got lucky, in my opinion. I think they had ONE good concept, and were able to translate it succesfully into the first Matrix. They may have had some fine germs of ideas re: sequels, but nothing nearly as strong as it should have been.

This wasn't just a sequel to some run-of-the-mill action movie starring Arnold and a bunch of fucking explosions. It was the sequel to one of the most refreshing, inventive sci-fi/action movies of all time. That's not to say that it's being set up on a pedestal so high that no mortal could possibly achieve those heights again. But, this shit should have had stronger foundations. It should have had good dialogue. It should have had good acting, and characters that really made an impact.

A couple of good action sequences and some last-minute plot twists is NOT enough the justify an entire film. You could catch only the last 30-45 minutes of this shit, and still not miss a beat with the Matrix trilogy. All that shit they showed before the story really kicked in didn't need to be seen. That's the kind of shit that can take place BETWEEN movies, and can be filled in with context.

KingSausage said:

Anybody who apparently appreciates the Godfather is okay in my book, but you think X2 was better than The Matrix Reloaded? X2 was a yawner at times. Good movie, but a semi-yanwer nonetheless.

KS so no emoticon change..at least cant we get rid of it if not giving A thumbs up?
at least for the freeway sceen, and the french guy etc

rdhull said:

Well...not enough yet...if someone could spell out why this movie is good, perhaps arguing against the specific things that I cited, then maybe I'll change the emoticon.

KingSausage said:

KS! Oh you gonna make me work for it eh?

rdhull said:

that's how



Now this makes more sense rather than immediately dimissing something you have not seen yet..same as if you said it may suck etc.




he didn't really loathe it like he professed. His viewing-thoughts were tainted

. You have basically said that none of us who were underwhelmed by the film have a valid opinion, because we bought into the hype. .

Oh buillshit--where have I said that? Huh? show me--maybe yall ASSUME thats what Im doing or thats what youve made iof it or whatever
Ive only spoken about those who were vehemently underwhelmed by it and even then mainly to those who didnt show a basis for it etc..and to those who did I stated in so many terms that probably is tainted due to what has been posted here etc..and I stand by it, but dont come up with some boolshet about me saying anybody and everybody underwhelmed by it was taken in by hype etc? wtf , I never understood that even when KS said it. Plus now you want me to go up n up refuting each thing you deem bad with it (which some I agree with..where is this rd is a matrix flagwaver coming from? Because I tasted bias in posting?). You already have a steadfast mindset about it so why bother..I just know ( or feel) that some of the.."negativity" or hmm..displeasure..has been magnified for bullshit reasons. I odnt cvare what anybody claims. Now if you cant understand my meaning etc (and this goes for any and everone else) than too fucking bad. I bet the problem is with no Metallica in Zion

FutureShock said:



Hello! This is so sensible and I thought common sense that everyone had..99% of its detractors writing from vendetta-personal issues etc. Its funn-ay.

rdhull said:

hmmm...what about this previous post of yours:




Hmmm...very interesting indeed. Where did we get all of those cracy ideas about you?

AaronSuperior said:
---
Saw it last night. Thoughts...


I liked the original movie. I still do, even though I cannot bear to watch it again (a roommate of mine had it on DVD and watched it every day -- then it hit HBO, ad nauseum). I think they should have stopped at 1 movie.

It's not that I'm disappointed in the second one because it couldn't live up to the hype or the expectation set by the first one. It's because of the concepts involved. The whole thing is based on a freshman philosophy course (the dead giveaway is the causality vs. free will debate smack dab in the middle of Reloaded, if there were any doubts).

Why they should have stopped at the first one is that, while it's all pop-philosophy/psychology as the subtext, the first one put forward the notion, played on it, but you weren't given ALL that much of it, so that the flaws in the whole thing didn't jump out at you, when you actually went on to think about it.

I'm reminded of a thread on this forum about a month ago, where rdhull and I were debating Matrix Reloaded and X2 and which would be better. It led to a mini-debate about the themes of both movies. X-Men has always been my favorite comic book for this very reason: their concept has a point. It has a point that is derived from and can be applied to the real world. Persecution. Discrimination. Ignorance. Fear. Hatred. Society's outcasts who only want to be accepted and live as normal people, even though they're different. It's a simple concept really, one grounded in the real world, despite the extraneous context of superpowered mutants.

The Matrix, on the other hand, seems to me, like sci-fi derived from pop-philosophy derived from sci-fi based on freshman philosophy concepts. (Reminds me of Scientology, actually, but with a different subject matter). It's all rather incestuous and, while there is a kernal of validity and something of interest to find in the concepts, it's very simplistic to the point of going round in circles, based on premises one may or may not subscribe to in the real world. For all the talk that we're living in the Matrix, machines running our lives, "the system" telling us what to do, what to believe, and how to behave, it's only that... just talk. The kind of talk that people who want to think they're deep talk about, but really has no basis in reality in the context of a day-to-day life. It's the kind of thing communications/philosophy professors write about in their books that they can't sell because no one's really interested and they aren't all that relevant, so they make a class of 30 buy it and use it as a text book for the class they're teaching.

That's why they should have left it at 1 movie. The basic premise stands up if there isn't a great deal of attention paid to it. It's a great set-up for a cool sci-fi movie. Having a second and third movie about those concepts is too close an examination of what the movies are about, and that's where it falls down. On top of that, I could really give a rat's ass if Zion falls or not.

As for the movie itself, i found it to be fairly entertaining. The 3 major action set pieces were great. Great movie, so-so film. It could have been edited better. Even just 10 minutes from the total running time would have made for better pacing. About a minute cut from the major fx/action scenes (I found my mind wandering even during the chase scene). That whole Dance Party USA/no-chemistry sex scene needs to go altogether. And any point where Morpheus is speaking (ie, before the Soul Train bit, and toward the end when they're enacting their big plan) needs to be chopped. A lot.

My favorite scene was the bit with the many Agent Smiths, and the climax of that. Very cool. The other action scenes were cool too. Viewed on that level, it's entertaining. Below the surface, though, it's trying too hard to be deep in areas that are pretty shallow to begin with.
---

.They also added a lot of other religious theory to it as well. I like this review of it. A fair assessment