Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Matrix IV

ruffneck23 said:
Well that was weird, I think I enjoyed it but simultaneously think it was a right load of bollocks too...
Click to expand...
At least they're consistent... ;)

Just finished watching; will have to let percolate, but certainly enjoyed it more than Revolutions.

Does feel like it fits with what others have said about previous Wachowski films - flawed, somewhat inconsistent, but also some interesting elements too.

Reminded me very much of Force Awakens, particularly at the start.

Also actually felt kind of... small? Didn't feel like we really saw much of either world.

Enjoyed NPH, which isn't hard to do :) Also Jessica Henwick, who I thought was one of the best things in the Netflix Marvel series (again, not that hard...).
 
Just remembered another thought I had for a lot of the film: for a lot of the run time, again, particularly the beginning, it felt like one of those higher budget fan-made films you see on YouTube.

krtek a houby said:
Though it disappoints, have to laugh at some of the criticisms from the right. It's a "woke disaster", or it "promotes" transgenderism etc.

Anyway, surely calling it "woke" is some kinda ironic shit...
Click to expand...

Have to admit, at some point during watching I did think "it'll be really interesting to see how the 'red pill' lot respond to a lot of this", before realising that, as these things go, the original trilogy was arguably more 'woke' than a lot big Hollywood films. Possibly in some part because the original wasn't a huge budget film.
 
Lord Camomile said:
Just remembered another thought I had for a lot of the film: for a lot of the run time, again, particularly the beginning, it felt like one of those higher budget fan-made films you see on YouTube.



Have to admit, at some point during watching I did think "it'll be really interesting to see how the 'red pill' lot respond to a lot of this", before realising that, as these things go, the original trilogy was arguably more 'woke' than a lot big Hollywood films. Possibly in some part because the original wasn't a huge budget film.
Click to expand...

The red pill lot have been acting with ridicule and denial to the Wachowski's claim that for them, the Matrix movies revolved around a trans metaphor.

If at the time those films were more woke than other blockbusters, it has more to do with the Wachowski's than with budget, especially as much of it is subtext and the casting of supporting characters. Their first film the neo noir Bound, was one of the first genre films I can remember seeing where the two lead characters just happened to be gay, without the film making an issue of it.
 
Reno said:
If at the time those films were more woke than other blockbusters, it has more to do with the Wachowski's than with budget, especially as much of it is subtext and the casting of supporting characters.
Click to expand...
Oh, absolutely; I simply meant that had there been a bigger budget, the Wachowskis may have had less autonomy and studio types might have tried to exert more control, and removed/changed that subtext and casting.
 
Lord Camomile said:
Oh, absolutely; I simply meant that had there been a bigger budget, the Wachowskis may have had less autonomy and studio types might have tried to exert more control, and removed/changed that subtext and casting.
Click to expand...
The Matrix was a fairly big budget movie and there isn't anything in The Matrix which rocks the boat too much. Not counting the subtext, which goes over most people's heads, its "wokeness" is mostly in the diverse casting of supporting actors, but two of the three leads still are white. 1999 was a year which produced a great number of genuinely ambitious American films. There are many articles and even a book making the case that it is one of the best years for film ever.

best-movie-year-ever-9781501175404_xlg.jpg
 
Reno said:
The Matrix was a fairly big budget movie and there isn't anything in The Matrix which rocks the boat too much. Not counting the subtext, which goes over most people's heads, its "wokeness" is mostly in the diverse casting of supporting actors, but two of the three leads still are white.
Click to expand...
Heh, well that's exactly why I added the qualifier in the first place :D Precisely because it's not that radical (figure it might be helpful to get away from "woke"), but is in comparison to even more mainstream fair that is the usual output of Hollywood.
 
Have seen a couple of reviews and comments about this film. Makes me tempted to see it, just to see if it can really be that bad, but I know this is just self-destructive contrariness.
 
Reno said:
The Matrix was a fairly big budget movie and there isn't anything in The Matrix which rocks the boat too much. Not counting the subtext, which goes over most people's heads, its "wokeness" is mostly in the diverse casting of supporting actors, but two of the three leads still are white. 1999 was a year which produced a great number of genuinely ambitious American films. There are many articles and even a book making the case that it is one of the best years for film ever.

View attachment 304188
Click to expand...

best-movie-year-ever-9781501175404_xlg.jpg
 
mwgdrwg said:
View attachment 304492
Click to expand...
The 90s is probably my least favourite decade for film, but despite horrors like The Phantom Menace (and best picture winner American Beauty) as many great films came out in 1999 as during the rest of that decade. 1999 wouldn't be my best movie year ever, I'd probably pick 1959 or 1974 from my two favourite decades for film.
 
Lord Camomile said:
..as these things go, the original trilogy was arguably more 'woke' than a lot big Hollywood films...
Click to expand...

The second and third lose a lot of coherence, but the only 'woke' thing I can think of off the top of my head is that Neo gets literally 'woke up' by the red pill, and that there is a system of oppression that most of the matrix-dwellers do not know of. The first is just literalist silliness (on my part) and the second isn't unusual at all in films from the time, or even much earlier.
 
I was really looking forward to this, even thought the reviews I'd tried to avoid were a bit mixed. Having watched it, my main point was why did they bother? Not as in 'it was shit', it wasn't shit, more that the plot didn't take it anywhere new or interesting.
 
Wilf said:
I was really looking forward to this, even thought the reviews I'd tried to avoid were a bit mixed. Having watched it, my main point was why did they bother? Not as in 'it was shit', it wasn't shit, more that the plot didn't take it anywhere new or interesting.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Apart from the meta first third or so. Shame it didn't stick with that approach.
 
Watching it now. Haven’t finished it yet, but what a bizarre sorry mess this is.

Many or most reboots/ sequels of iconic films end up being vastly inferior, but at least the makers had a clarity of vision about what they were trying to honour and achieve. This thing can’t make its mind up about whether it’s a humorous homage, a sequel, a reboot, or fuck knows what else.

The self indulgent fourth wall-breaking jokes and quotes acknowledging you’re watching a reboot of a major film might work on such wares as the Family Guy Star Wars specials, but they are a cringeworthy disaster here, and they completely ruin the tone of the film and any attempt to immerse oneself in it.

The script is wayward and confusing, and the constant flashbacks to the original film feel distracting and desperate. Not a fan on principle of rebooting classic/ iconic films, but if you’re going to do it, give us something decent ffs. The JJ Abrams reboot of Star Trek might have displeased some canon-observant fans of the franchise, but otherwise it was a highly entertaining and enjoyable product. Even more puzzling given that it’s the same director as the original, or one half of the team anyway.
 
Oh dear, this doesn't sound promising at all

I'm not very demanding from films, I'll be honest, but this sounds maybe a story too far even for my low bars

First the new Jack Reacher book, then this, 2022... <sigh>
 
High Voltage said:
Oh dear, this doesn't sound promising at all

I'm not very demanding from films, I'll be honest, but this sounds maybe a story too far even for my low bars

First the new Jack Reacher book, then this, 2022... <sigh>
Click to expand...
Watched it, well most of it, paid for on Prime

Still got half a hour to go, I'll catch that tomorrow, maybe?

I've got a new jack reacher to read as well. I'm not optimistic
 
T & P said:
Thoughts so far?
Click to expand...
I like Keanu Reeves as an actor but I feel like he's "phoning it in"
The story is gibberish
The previous Matrix films feel like they have higher production values. This views like a straight to DVD film, there's no visual richness, and God knows I'm anything but a film snob
There's nothing new, it feels very "samey"
All in all I'm disappointed. But on the plus side it was less than a fiver
 
Can't be arsed anymore.
First one was great at the time, though on rewatching recently it really hasn't aged well at all. Quite painful in fact.
The second and third were always trash, but fairly interesting one shot cinema eye candy.
That last one looked as cheap as chips and just played as an old toy they wanted to smash into pieces and throw away.

From now on I assume it's going to be similar to the animatrix. . . we will flooded with spin offs with a 1 in 10 'that'll do' hit rate.
 
I think that if the third Matrix film had rounded off the story well and fulfilled the promise of the concept, the second film would be remembered much more positively than it is. It’s a perfectly reasonable second act, which fulfilled the function of moving the story on. We only look back at it poorly because where the story was moved on to turned out to be bad.
 
kabbes said:
I think that if the third Matrix film had rounded off the story well and fulfilled the promise of the concept, the second film would be remembered much more positively than it is. It’s a perfectly reasonable second act, which fulfilled the function of moving the story on. We only look back at it poorly because where the story was moved on to turned out to be bad.
Click to expand...
I don't know about that. I remember not really liking the second one at the time. Though, there was the possibility of a reveal double layered matrix left at the climax (when neo used his power in the real world), that would have been a far more interesting route. I would have then taken a massive sideswipe, opening the third film with a set piece set before or on another later before rejoining the story.

But the second film was still full of a large amount of bollocks and shite cgi.
 
I watched the 4th one only because it happened to be available on a long haul flight. It was as terrible as the second and third ones. I definitely won't be bothering with whatever the next incarnation of the story is. They should've just left it after the first one. The ending (and the imagined aftermath) would've cemented it as one of the most iconic movies of the 20th century. It still is, but it's tainted by the others.
 
I was going to say if people keep watching them and making the studios money, they'll keep making them. But then I checked the takings for the last film and it lost over $30m, so it doesn't even make sense financially.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

beesonthewhatnow
Star Wars IV as one huge scrollable infographic
Replies
4
Views
507
T & P
T & P
Kid_Eternity
Sense8 - Netflix original by The Matrix & Babylon 5 creators
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
189
Views
12K
krtek a houby
krtek a houby
not-bono-ever
Spiral IV
Replies
13
Views
687
not-bono-ever
not-bono-ever
S
The Matrix sequels
2
Replies
54
Views
14K
Gromit
Gromit
friedaweed
Ivor Cutler @ 90 R4 Teeneet
Replies
4
Views
644
kittyP
kittyP
Back
Top Bottom