The interesting part was, the European people he was facing were actually great professionals in their fields, and they were instead fighting like parodies. The German spearman is actually an Eastern trained martial artist, having lived in Hong Kong for years, and the Englishman is a world reknowned saber user. The Frenchman is a decent boxer, iirc.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I used to really enjoy the Matrix when I was younger, but every subsequent viewing just knocks it down a peg each time. The camera work and the fighting choreography is pretty cool, but that's about it. The characters are boring, lifeless, and bland (excepting Smith), and the story is Philosophy 101 " what a mindf*ck hur hur". Actually, screw the story, it's just the characters. They suck.
I like the characters. Neo is no worse than Luke and he gets some pretty awesome lines, he gets to act awesome and by the end he is awesome. Trinity, eh, she's pretty ok. Morpheus is badass. They're lifeless when in the Matrix for a reason, because they know none of it is real. I think thats a neat idea personally.
Also I've never seen a movie with philisophy in it that wasn't described as "Philosophy 101". Not to rag on you or anything, but thats needlessly dismissive. Of course its not going to have any mindblowing philosophical points in it. Its a movie, if they had some new innovative philosophy they'd do a lecture or something, not put it in a freaking movie. Philosophy in literature/media is always like that. When you try to convey complicated philosophical points you get Ghost in the Shell when the characters dryly monologue for 10 minutes at a time. At the end of the day, when I watched it, it made me think. Thats more than 99.99% of all movies I've seen.
(yes I've seen over a 1000 movies, wanna fight about it)
Terrible acting, loathsome characters, ugly, dreary set pieces and its not even slightly funny.
Originally posted by NephthysI've never understood the dislike for Mark Hamill's Luke. He served the necessary purpose each film required of him, and did very well. "He's a whiny farmboy" isn't much of a critique when you consider how that's the point. People want badass from every character? That's boring.
I like the characters. Neo is no worse than Luke and he gets some pretty awesome lines, he gets to act awesome and by the end he is awesome. Trinity, eh, she's pretty ok. Morpheus is badass. They're lifeless when in the Matrix for a reason, because they know none of it is real. I think thats a neat idea personally.Also I've never seen a movie with philisophy in it that wasn't described as "Philosophy 101". Not to rag on you or anything, but thats needlessly dismissive. Of course its not going to have any mindblowing philosophical points in it. Its a movie, if they had some new innovative philosophy they'd do a lecture or something, not put it in a freaking movie. Philosophy in literature/media is always like that. When you try to convey complicated philosophical points you get Ghost in the Shell when the characters dryly monologue for 10 minutes at a time. At the end of the day, when I watched it, it made me think. Thats more than 99.99% of all movies I've seen.
(yes I've seen over a 1000 movies, wanna fight about it)
I've seen movies involving philosophy that didn't revolve their entire... message/plot/character development around one simple premise: "it's not really there, accept it." It got kind of old after a few re-watches, and raised a few questions the film didn't answer (like "why only the One could avoid death, and not the others). The film may have been able to sell me quality beyond it's theme if the bulk of the characters and their actors had actually been... good, for lack of a better word. Like I said to Gideon about the Star Wars prequels, it's characters that make or break a film, not the story.
And the good guys in The Matrix were dull, boring, and lifeless. That disposition would have worked great in the context of what you said--"paradise wasn't real, reality actually sucks" if Neo hadn't been portrayed the way he was (I blame Keanu as much as the writers), and if the all the non-Neo crew members had received more than a pinch of character development. Why should I care about the message/deaths/twists etc. if you can't make me give a shit about any of the other characters? But assuming exposition was there... Contrast the crew's dreary detachment (you got irony right there--and it makes Mouse's line more poignant) with Neo's naivety and inexperience. He should have been enraged, and awestruck, and depressed, and confused, and horrified. What we get instead is Keanu's vacant gaze, a 20-second panic attack, some milky vomit, and passionless resignation. That's. About. It. And such a contrast would have made Cypher's character actually pitiable for his depression, instead of just reprehensible for his greed. Two dimensional characters (especially as villains) suck. It's why Smith worked out so well (Hugo Weaving's awesome performance aside): the film twisted our preconceived notion's of Smith's computer program character in to more of a human one. And the film set that notion up on purpose. It worked very well.
And hell's yeah I'll fight about it.