|
quote:
Originally posted by AjY 2k
this movie was just to sell the third one. There were no new ideas (like the first one), which made it not as interesting, and the plot was shit.
What are you talking about? To each his/her own, I suppose, but your view seems so fallacious. This isn't just a response to you Andrew, nothing personal, but I suppose it comes after a slew of similar views to yours.
People's expectations for this movie were far too high, especially considering there were almost no expectations for the first one when it came out. Regardless of that, it was still a solid movie, with a fairly original, substantial plot, especially considering that at its heart it's an action movie.
I don't believe it was created just to sell the third one. Every movie's made to make money, and sequels are made to capitalize on the success of their predecessors. After the success of the first movie, the creators of the movie were on board to make two more movies, and considering that this movie was the second in a trilogy, it did an excellent job of sustaining itself as an individual movie as well as creating suspense for the final chapter.
To your point that there was no new ideas, I can agree with you there. Many of the ideas that are presented in both movies have already been thought of. However, that's not a detracting factor of the series at all, because of the clever and excellent presentation in the movie(s). I don't know of many other mainstream movies in recent years that have had as many allusions to science, philosophy, theology, and culture just as the Matrix did. Even if the concepts aren't totally new, the Wachowskis did an excellent job of consolidating those ideas and presenting them in a fairly unique fashion for their target audences. The Matrix became a pop culture hegemon after its release, and that's rare for a movie that didn't have an excessive amount of hype. It was groundbreaking at the time, and after something like that, there's only so much farther you can go. Also, considering time and technology constraints, the sequel was phenomenal.
With your last remark that the plot was shit, I can't help but disagree with you. Perhaps you could give some examples of what movies had good plots? I just would like to understand where you're coming from, and what you're using comparitively to judge. The plot was full of substance, did not have any holes, and despite the lack of exceptional acting (it wasn't bad though, by any means), the characters were very developed, and involved the audience. Also, the plot twists were fairly surprising, and although a few may have been predictable, the wachowskis did a good job of keeping the movie entertaining. Perhaps people were disappointed with the way the story has turned out because it differed from what their interpretations may have been of the first movie. That's one of the best qualities of the first, that it actually caused people to think, and thus it's hard to come up with plot twists to satisfy people who've already considered a myriad of possibilities. Even so, people will go to see the movie to see if they've been right, and there's pleasure in finding out what happens next.
You call this movie shit, but I would think that you'll be back in the theaters this November. I don't mean for this to come off as an affront, just as a discussion, so...yeah.
__________________
word is bond
|
05-17-2003 04:51 AM
it was an okay movie despite everyone's extremely high expectations
