i have actually never seen this
or nay of em but I have em on dvr
I'm missing out
right?
Right. It's a great film, a must see.
shareI will for sure watch it!
shareNo it's not, it's shit.
MovieChat Forums > The Matrix (1999) Discussion > i have actually never seen this
Lucky bastard (don't bother....it's movie solely designed around a CGI package....circa 1999....and little else) The entire franchise is just hyperbolic 'meh' for cyber-punk freaks (that *STILL* haven't left the confines of home)
shareI don't see that at all. I've never been into cyber punk anything, yet found this a fascinating science fiction, among the best.
And I haven't lived at home for many decades.
Don't bother, it's filled with stupid special effects gimmicks and plotholes you could drive an 18-wheeler through, not to mention embarrassing cod philosophy, the belief that trenchcoats and sunglasses make you look cool (and the Columbine killers thought that too), violence against countless innocents, and a fucking ANNOYING GREEN TINT OVER EVERYTHING.
One of my favourite films. It's really great. Good balance of fun action and cerebral philosophy in a cool, cyberpunk package. They find time to mix in anime and comic book influences, too, and kung fu films. It was a cultural phenomenon for a reason.
shareIt's a good movie. The sequels are worthy successors too.
If you can get passed Keanu Reeves' dry acting style, you'll like this.
The Matrix sequels are SHIT, and only made to cash in because LOTR made tons of money filmed back-to-back. Same for Pirates of the Caribbean, THOSE sequels were shit TOO.
Shit? That's a bit harsh AMJF. Surely, they're better than any film on the IMDB bottom 100. But then again, maybe you thought a film like From Justin To Kelly was a good movie?
share"From Justin To Kelly"
Never seen it. I have seen the movies I mentioned, however. That's how I know they're shit.
If you really want to see a shit film watch From Justin To Kelly. Nahhh... The Matrix films are like masterpieces compared to anything on IMDB bottom 100.
You think Matrix films are "that" bad?
Another shitty film is Legend Of The Mummy. In my opinion, it's the worst film ever made that has at least one big name actor in it.
The point is, compared to numerous films, there is no way The Matrix films are awful. You really don't know awful until you've seen some of the movies on the IMDB B100.
stickman is basically saying "a moldy expired meat sandwich isn't that bad because a puke shit milkshake is word"
shareby that logic all of Michael bays films are good because they are better than some low budget bottom 100 film. not true
shareThe fact is, all you need is a camera and a few actors and you can make a movie. Of course, films are subjective but you have to compare it to something. No way Matrix films are bottom 100 material.
And I think the only Bay film I've seen is Pearl Harbor. And I thought it was decent.
"The fact is, all you need is a camera and a few actors and you can make a movie."
AND?
"No way Matrix films are bottom 100 material."
where did anyone ever say this?
your argument is basically
"a moldy expired meat sandwich isn't that bad (matrix 2 and 3) because a puke shit milkshake is worse (imdb bottom 100)
The fact that you're confused by my camera comment says a lot.
You're calling them "shit" that means you would rate them about the same as the movies on the B100. If this is not correct, then what do you rate the Matrix sequels?
Again, when judging films, you have to compare it to something. At least, I think you do because it prevents knee-jerk reactions to movies. Which it sounds like you had one of these when you watched the sequels.
They're really not "that" bad.
In fact, the general consensus is in. Both critics and fans alike tend to agree that the sequels are good. But again, it's subjective, if you didn't like them, fine. Different strokes for different folks or some shit like that....
The fact that you're confused by my camera comment says a lot.
im really not. im asking you to clarify. again doesn't make it good or bad.
"You're calling them "shit" that means you would rate them about the same as the movies on the B100. If this is not correct, then what do you rate the Matrix sequels? "
nope never said that, no one that. you made that up
"Again, when judging films, you have to compare it to something. At least, I think you do because it prevents knee-jerk reactions to movies. Which it sounds like you had one of these when you watched the sequels. "
no I can just view them and their filming inferior. but if comparing them to the original. and they are far far far inferior in every way
the matrix 3 has an imdb of 6.7/10, a rotten of 35% and meteoritic of 47%
The point is, you said "low budget" B100. That is not accurate. Many of the films on the B100 were expensive movies. Sure, compared to Matrix, you might say they're low but no one is going to invest millions on a film unless they really think it's going to be a hit. The fact is, budget doesn't mean that much anyways, because again, all you need is a camera and few actors and "Wa-lah" you got a movie.
In addition to this, that movie Blair Witch Project was just a camera and a few actors, nothing else. The budget was only 60K and many do consider it to be a good movie. It made over 200 million worldwide. That is a huge return on investment.
Again, budget is not that important.
And yes, some critics were harsh on matrix 3 but some of them did like it. And fans seem to agree that it's a decent film. Fan rating on RT is 60. That is usually an indication that most agree that it is above above or pretty good. Although, personally, I didn't like the squeals as much as the original but I would never call them shit or a moldy meat sandwich whatever that means... "shit" right?
Anyhow, I guess you would admit then that yes, they're not "that" bad, you would rate them something like a 5 out of 10, right?
watch this one. pretend the others don't exist. you are welcome
shareNo. It's just a flick for Redditpseuds with good action scenes.
share