How many of you actually thought that it was a 'good' movie. I'm not asking if you were entertained, or even if you liked it a lot. I was highly entertained, I even saw it on IMAX and plan to buy it on DVD. But it was not a 'good' movie. Thoughts?
Haven't seen it yet... was it better on IMAX? Did it look too anamorphed? btw nice chatting with ya earlier.. NOMAH!
can't an entertaining movie be a good movie? can a movie be entertaining and not good. i don't think i've ever walked out of an entertaining movie and thought, "wow, that sucked. that was no good." is it possible you think too much about this stuff? harry potter, etc.??
I think a sequel is hard to make great. The reason being that a great movie will make you feel something or think about something you haven't thought about in some time. The orginal Matrix already did that for you. It made you think that there may be some greater world beyond our reality. It took you on an adventure to that world. That was great. As far as a good movie. I think you need to be taken somewhere. I think you need to believe in the characters and they need to develop. I'm not sure that Matrix did either. The characters did not appear to develop all that much. They just went along for the adventure and we got very little sense that NEO was growing as a person. We knew that he had grown, but for most of the movie he didn't feel anything new. He didn't wake up to something like he did in the first movie. He wasn't an ordinary person put in an extraordinary circumstance. At end he did wake up to something. But that was 1 second of growth. And a confusing one at that. As far as being taken somewhere. The Matrix kind of did that, but most of the movie was taking me where I had already been in the first movie. So there was nothing that spectacular about where it took us. And when we finally did get to where they were taking us the Architect was talking out of his ass. Overall. I enjoyed it a lot. Great fun. But the movie wasn't great. It may not even qualify for good. But what is really going to bake your noodle, is would it have been good if everybody had told you it would suck.
Hell yes it was a good movie. Never in my life have I just sat down and thought about a movie more than Matrix Reloaded. There are so many strands left untied in this trilogy, and there are so many different directions the director can go, so many different ideas intertwining...so many seemingly double-meaning statements peppered throughout the film that I can sit down and just brain wash theories for hours. Oh yeah, it had kickass fighting and car chases too. Was it a good movie? Hell yes.
I know exactly what he means. I think what he distinguishing between is just plain ole "dumb entertainment" (special effects, nekkid hot women, cheap laughs, etc.), and a <i>good</i> well-developed movie (plot, dialog, acting). I thought Matrix 2 had a terrible plot, horrible acting, and dialog that made me cringe, yet I was still entertained by the special effects. I thought the first Matrix, on the other hand, was a better all around movie, meaning, to me, it was both entertaining <i>and</i> "good." In my opinion, that made it a lot more satisfying movie than the sequel.
Ditto. Raven, have you visited http://forums.matrixfans.net/index.php?s= yet? Just the place to do all you mentioned in your post.
i thought it was a great movie but the way they made Keanu Reeves fly with that cape was a litte stupid. Overall it was a solid sequel. Let me say it like this... Matrix Reloaded was better than Die Hard 2.
It was a trenchcoat. And Behad, thanks for the link. I particularly like the thread up right now that discusses why there can't be a matrix within a matrix. Good stuff.
what constitues good acting?? Friends? Overacting is worse than poor acting. If you want poor acting, watch vin diseal.
yeah i know it was a trench coat. It was still stupid and it did look like he was wearing a cape. There's no getting around it, he was made out to be superman. That's the only part of the movie i didn't like. Everything else was great.
I'd say the 'plot' is one of the boldest you'll find in a sci-fi action movie. Especially by today's standards. In fact, it's the effort at telling a deep, involving story that has garnered the most criticism of the Matrix Reloaded. More often than not, you'll see the criticism as 'it was too slow most of the time'. Or 'it dragged too much'. I think it was an excellent movie. Great action, thoughtful, indepth story and plot, and an attempt to not just make a brainless sequel.
Forgive me if this has been trotted out already. I had this thought when I walked out of the theatre after seeing it with my son for the first time... at the end of the 3rd movie this plot line is resolved and it fades to black... you think you have it figured out and the movie is ending when... "Neo" is in a brightly lit room, blinking his eyes after taking some contraption off his head, and says "That's a kickas$ game, Dude! Needs a little tweaking, but it's got potential!". And there it ends, in the near future at a company coming up with the latest games and trying it out on the latest equipment. Just a thought that popped into my head at the time. It was more coherent and sounded logical when I was talking to my kid. I'm having a hard time coming up with where this series is going. It could have used more plot and less action, imo. Still enjoyed it. And this is one big SF fan here who liked the first one much more.
Actually I think it was a Jesuit uniform (habit?) or something close to it. I thought it was not a good movie, as an action movie. I won't go into the symbolism which Matrix fans seem to be sensitive about. But, simply as an action movie, they mostly did a bad job. For one, they outstripped the capacity of the CGI. In the most challenging CGI parts, the people look cartoonish. That's very bad, in my reckoning. This wasn't helped by some of the cartoonish sound effects, like the bowling ball strike sound in the 1000 Agent Smiths scene. The fights were ridiculously long and boring. Again, with the 1000 Agent Smiths scene, why do we have to watch them beat each other up for 20 minutes when no one is actually hurt, and no one wins the fight? Since it ended in a retreat anyway, why not do that after 2 minutes? Much too long; I should have gone to the bathroom or bought a coke or something. Much of the freeway chase was entertaining, but how many times does Morpheus have to almost fall off the 18-wheeler. That was silly. Things like that detracted tremendously from the quality and even enjoyability of the movie. And, I have to say again, what made the action really boring was that it was for the most part ineffectual. Too much fighting without resolution. In the fight on top of the 18 wheeler, the confrontation is not ultimately resolved by the fight itself but rather by Neo swooping in to whisk everyone away. The sene in which Neo fights everyone with the medieval weaponry was ultimately settled within the fight, but even that took way too long. Neo had so many opportunities to stab someone and be done with it and instead hit the person with a hilt or the broadside of the blade. Why? One of the things that made the first Matrix fun as an action movie was the guns. The helicopter-mounted machine gun or the gun-fight in the lobby. Enjoying the gun-fight might be childish, but it did make the most memorable scenes of that movie. Deckard, it's funny you should mention that. My sister said that the movie seemed to her like watching someone play a computer game.
I tend to agree with JV and Ragin' Raven about this movie. Most of the scenes were too long and extremely unnecessary. Can anyone say Orgy? These lengthy scenes were okay the first time around, but very noticable. Once I watched it a second time, I just looked forward to the next scene and zoned during the chase/fight/orgy scenes in the movie. The Agent Smith fight scene had a terrible ending. Why waste the audience's time with a fight that could have been resolved 4-5 minutes earlier? I agree with Raven on the thinking part though. For a good week, all I thought about was the Matrix and what the hell was happening. I felt like I had to see it again to catch a scene that I forgot about the first time around. I can't wait for the 3rd movie to come out to answer all of these questions. As for the question, what's "good" is in the eye of the beholder I guess... Movies that I find entertaining are good movies to me. Even some Pauly Shore movies are good movies under that criteria.
