Originally posted by PalynkaI am sure there are hundreds of films worse than the first Matrix, I just don't watch them. I chose to name Matrix because I have actually seen it, and of the films I have seen it was definitely the worst. I have no idea how much money it made, nor do I care.
It's obvious that there are hundreds of films worse than the first Matrix and the fact that you chose to name it appears to me just as another pseudo-intelectual that rejects it because it made a lot of money, ergo it cannot be good.
2 edits
Originally posted by NordlysAnyone that can pinpoint so clearly the worst film they have seen, hasn't seen a lot of films.
I am sure there are hundreds of films worse than the first Matrix, I just don't watch them. I chose to name Matrix because I have actually seen it, and of the films I have seen it was definitely the worst. I have no idea how much money it made, nor do I care.
Edit: Or isn't being objective.
Edit 2: Bad grammar, but I'll leave it for the grammar Nazis to scavenge it.
Originally posted by PalynkaYou are right, I haven't seen a lot of films. And I am not objective either. I don't think there are any entirely objective criteria to determine whether a film is good or not. And if there were, they wouldn't be all that helpful because people would still like or dislike films for subjective reasons.
Anyone that can pinpoint so clearly the worst film they have seen, hasn't seen a lot of films.
Edit: Or isn't being objective.
Edit 2: Bad grammar, but I'll leave it for the grammar Nazis to scavenge it.
Originally posted by NordlysOk, that was my point all along. You have no objective criteria for disliking a film.
You are right, I haven't seen a lot of films. And I am not objective either. I don't think there are any entirely objective criteria to determine whether a film is good or not. And if there were, they wouldn't be all that helpful because people would still like or dislike films for subjective reasons.
3 edits
Originally posted by StarrmanAm I mad in thinking that Tron and Total Recall have a better script than The Matrix? I don't think so - the former has a childlike naivete which serves the Urizen storyline well, and the latter twists the identity conceit brilliantly (bad acting or no, Schwarzenegger ends the film as much a counterfeit character as he began, which is an interesting variation on the tabula rasa motif). You thought the storyline to Total Recall was predictable? In what way? Grief, I know Phillip K Dick has plenty of detractors, but I don't think predictability is something I would associate with him - he may plough the same furrow he always has, but it's undeniably an original one.
What? No I mean seriously, what?
Tron and Total Recall? Are you mad? Tron was only noteable for the use of effects, otherwise, not only the story, but also the acting are awful. Total Recall has some of the worst acting I have ever ...[text shortened]... people that could find Blade stylish are those that frequent C&A.
As for Dark City "lacking depth" - I really don't see what you mean by this, since it adapts the demiurge myth successfully and poses quite a few questions of identity, morality and social justice that The Matrix franchize merely alludes to casually. I certainly don't see how you can call Keanu Reeves striding flatulently around in leathers superior to it in intellectual content or existential vision - each to his own, though...
1 edit
Originally posted by AmauroteThe first Matrix must be separated from the Matrix franchise, if it's to be discussed at the same level of films like Dark City, which I am a great fan of.
Am I mad in thinking that Tron and Total Recall have a better script than The Matrix? I don't think so - the former has a childlike naivete which serves the Urizen storyline well, and the latter twists the identity conceit brilliantly. Yo ...[text shortened]... ntent or existential vision to it - each to his own, though...
Tron was very revolutionary visually, not merely for the technology of special effects, but also for the futuristic aesthetics that marked the way people imagined the future at the time and for considerable years afterwards. The plot was not it's strong point and I agree with you about its naivete. Tron is a must in the history of the genre.
I think Total Recall was fairly disappointing. Verhoeven didn't explore the identity questions that could be posed by the script and I think that although Phillip K Dick's stories are full of potential, they are hard to be passed onto the big-screen and keep their thought-provoking appeal. I usually use this film as an example of the dumbing-down of his scripts from which Blade Runner is a magnificent exception and the only one I think kept the depthness of PKD's stories.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaThere's no question that Total Recall and Tron have their flaws, but in Tron's case, I think its naivete is a strength - the symmetry of Sark/MCP/Programmer and Tron/Programmer works very well, and the simplicity is deceptive...the point is that it represents a creation in the midst of hubris denying its creator, and that hadn't been seen too often before. Total Recall is a very patchy film, but it does deliver on its central premise - the protagonist becomes a moral being, but his true personality is evil, and the film ends with his authentic personality being submerged by a moral decision of his inauthentic personality - I don't think this can be characterised as uninteresting or unimaginative, let alone predictable. I totally agree with you about Dick, though - God knows how they'll ever make The Man in the High Castle (hopefully not like Fatherland), should they ever get around to doing it.
The first Matrix must be separated from the Matrix franchise, if it's to be discussed at the same level of films like Dark City, which I am a great fan.
Tron was very revolutionary visually, not merely for the technology of special effe ...[text shortened]... the only one I think kept the depthness of PKD's stories.
2 edits
Originally posted by AmauroteBut that's my point, the potential of the story is there, but Verhoeven failed to deliver it. The main character's change of ethics through change of memories is such a promising topic yet I think Verhoeven skipped it altogether. It happens, but that's it... I think he missed it in that film.
Total Recall is a very patchy film, but it does deliver on its central premise - the protagonist becomes a moral being, but his true personality is evil, and the film ends with his authentic personality being submerged by a moral decision ...[text shortened]... think this can be characterised as uninteresting or unimaginative.
Funny you should mention TMITHC as it's my most anticipated FKD story to be adapted to film. I have a feeling it maybe seen as politically incorrect by some narrow minds, something that may have delayed its adaptation... Any thoughts on that?
Edit: Bad English
Originally posted by PalynkaWell, have it your way. I am not interested enough in movies to insist that you substantiate your claim. It could have been an interesting discussion, though. I have had similar discussions about music (which I know a whole lot more about than movies, being a musician).
Why should I indulge you?
Originally posted by NordlysOk. Let's look at music. Can anyone objectively say that I'm a bad guitar player? Yes. Same thing with films, subjective and objective mingle.
Well, have it your way. I am not interested enough in movies to insist that you substantiate your claim. It could have been an interesting discussion, though. I have had similar discussions about music (which I know a whole lot more about than movies, being a musician).