I'm with you there... but I'd put it at a 5 for X-Men, and maybe a 15 for Blade.
Hehehe....
Let's say it's a 10 for X-Men, a 5 for Blade, and right around the level of Spawn.
The Hulk movie leans a little too hard into the drama—though, to be fair, they really went all out with the special effects. I honestly don't get why some people expect a deep cinematic masterpiece when we're talking about an adaptation of Marvel comics. If the comic itself is just pure, unadulterated fun, then the movie should probably stay in that lane, too. It feels like Ang Lee was more interested in conveying Bruce's inner turmoil rather than just giving us two hours of entertainment driven by Hulk's rage.
By the way... I caught a pretty great little detail. At the start of the film, Bruce walks into this lab building, and you see an older guy in a suit and a security guard walk out. That guard is only on screen for a second or two... but it was definitely enough for me to realize it's Lou Ferrigno. The legendary Hulk from the old TV series!
About a month ago, I caught a segment on Fox News featuring Ian " Gandalf" McKellen. He confirmed that the producers have already secured the funding and that he’s officially accepted the role of Gandalf in the Hobbit. When asked, "Will Jackson be directing the Hobbit?" his response was quite telling: As a huge Tolkien-esque fan, it’s truly an honor to play Gandalf—but I do feel a bit disappointed that we Americans aren't able to produce a film based on a Tolkien book ourselves. I'm not entirely sure if Jackson will be at the helm, but hey, when Hollywood gets involved, you never know!
Robin Ramos2 said:Honestly, the one person who really gets under my skin is that guy—what’s his name? He isn't a Stage diver, but the name is pretty close. He uses that messy-haired guy in a black-and-white photo for his avatar.
Nirvana was actually a decent enough flick. Lambert didn't quite manage to tank it—which is saying something! I also really liked his performance playing that priest who gets taken out over in Poland.
I didn't mean to come off as harsh... but honestly, I think Quentin Tarantino has become a bit of a poser. I can see you're a huge fan—and trust me, I used to be too—but after watching this movie, I’ve had to rethink my stance on him. I basically had to tell myself: "Don't believe the hype!"
Of course... that doesn't necessarily mean I'm right....
I honestly can't believe people are actually sitting down to write deep philosophical critiques about this flick. It feels more like the sequel to Shaolin Soccer finally found its director, if you ask me.
And heaven forbid Tarantino ever decides to tackle a remake of the legendary Drunken Master... that would be nothing short of sacrilege.
I went through this for the very first time about a month ago... and man, it was brutal!
Just stick to some chamomile tea and try to be patient... It usually clears up in a few days, and once it does, you’ll honestly feel like a whole new person!😉
The last time I caught a show at an arena was seeing Nirvana and the Melvins over in Austin. I spent about 20 meters to the left... then 20 meters back... then 20 to the right... then 20 forward... just shuffling around like that for three hours straight.
I get why the kids want to be right in the middle of the mosh pit—it’s part of the experience—but there are also older guys in the crowd who paid full price just to get squeezed in there. What's the logic behind that?
I totally get it—because of how condensed they have to be, a sci-fi movie just can't capture everything a great sci-fi novel does. That said... the Wachowski brothers actually had over six hours of screen time to craft a script that could satisfy a more demanding audience. Your comparison to Terminator is spot on, too—because after the first installment, Terminator stopped being a classic sci-fi film and basically turned into a standard action spectacle. If you go into the movie without any massive expectations, you could call it a decent action flick... but if you're looking at it through the lens of sci-fi literature, it usually ends up feeling like total juvenile trash.
Let me correct myself here... I remember writing once that LOTR doesn't even come close to the level of The Matrix. So, where did I go wrong?
I definitely agree—you can't just turn a book into a movie and expect it to be a perfect reflection of what the author intended...
But then again... The Wachowskis weren't really trying to interpret anyone else's work here. They went strictly with their own vision—which, if you're a regular reader of Sci-Fi Literature, feels pretty illogical in several spots—and they basically took whatever they picked up in religious studies and tossed it all into a blender. After watching the first film, I honestly never imagined things would wrap up quite like this.
If you ask me, the biggest plot hole in the whole movie is... the main character. Good grief... our "Messiah" barely says ten sentences once he's out of The Matrix in the third film... and aside from his kung-fu inside The Matrix, we don't really see much of him at all. But still... I don't regret watching it one bit... The movie definitely has its charms. If you can just relax and stop asking "how?" or "why?", it’s actually a very pleasant watch.
That said... I still think rapidstag74 makes a fair point—Equilibrium is the better film.
Regarding the symbiosis—or lack thereof—between The Culture and The Matrix.
In The Culture, you have this consciously chosen symbiosis existing within a sort of communist utopia... But The Matrix? That’s arguably the most blatant example of parasitism out there... just draining energy from an entire population based on some ancient agreement made thousands of years ago. Still... that's really where the heart of the movie lies... the struggle for the simple right to choose.
Sci-Fi films operate under a different set of rules—it's just a completely different beast altogether.
It’s pretty obvious that the primary rule of any big-budget Sci-Fi flick is simple: get that investment back with as much profit as possible. That’s the bedrock of it all. Everything else is just extra fluff. In fact, the whole nature of the genre actually pushed William Gibson to create a bit of a caricature of his own work in >.
Now, I'm not saying > is garbage... but did anyone here actually feel a bit let down by how things played out during the sequels and all that hype surrounding them after the first movie?
On another note... was the deal described in > supposed to last forever, or what?
But look, I’m not just insulting the idea of viewing AI as some big pile of machines. Plenty of authors have tackled this with much more nuance. Banks, for instance, envisions them as a collection of independent AIs tucked away within a singularity, coexisting alongside humans in a sort of digital community. Simmons takes an even more subtle approach by focusing on the actual transfer of her hardware. Personally, though? The whole concept of stacking a billion machines across the Earth's crust feels like total nonsense to me.
If you're referring to the human survivors from the Antimatrix... It seems to me that any surface resistance was wiped off the map ages ago, since the Matrix doesn't mention a thing about it. That whole episode regarding the resistance on the surface in the Antimatrix probably took place centuries—maybe even millennia—before the movie even starts.
That ending where the Architect tells the Oracle he isn't human—and that's why he sticks to his word—really supports the idea that the Matrix has always functioned as a negotiated agreement. But still... Where does this idea come from—that an AI, as a self-contained intelligence, is incapable of lying or adapting to its own needs?
I'm not saying the entire premise of the movie is garbage... but they really could have struck a better balance between a script for the general audience and one that actually satisfies the hardcore sci-fi fans.
Despite all the flaws in these movies... I think the biggest issue with The Matrix lies in its core concept itself.
Why on earth would an AI feel the need to blanket the entire planet in machines? Wouldn't an AI's existence be much more efficient within bio-chips rather than tons of heavy metal? What’s the point of having a billion squids when the only actual threat to the AI is a handful of people in Zion? If humans actually polluted the sky... couldn't the AI have figured out a way to disperse the clouds and just switch over to solar power during those centuries (was it 1,000? 5,000 years?)—effectively getting rid of the whole annoying human burden in one go?
The movie ends up asking a million questions simply because the script clashes with basic common sense.
I didn't find Revolutions to be all that bad—until those final ten minutes hit. That messianic ending for Neo is quite possibly the worst way you could wrap this up. I'm still a bit confused by the dialogue during the scene where Neo dies and the machines carry him away (to some kind of pedestal?)... the camera frames it as if Neo is watching the whole thing from outside his own body. Does that imply he was ascended to heaven? Yikes.