MovieChat Forums > The_Rev > Replies
The_Rev's Replies
Probably has something to do with the fact that naming sequels strictly by the number they are in the sequence is highly unimaginative...
I don't think there was a lot that needed referencing from Ghostbusters 2... The only character that was missing from this one, but probably could have been referenced, was Dana Barrett's kid, but he wasn't Peter's kid, that we knew of... So it wasn't strictly necessary. Plus one of the two twin brothers who played him died, sadly by his own hand... Chances are if his brother had even been approached to reprise the role, it may have been too hard for him to consider emotionally.
Yeah... He was in interesting character for sure.
I mean... No Time to Die came out at a bit better time, COVID wise... Cases are exploding again, due to the holiday celebrations kicking the case numbers into high gear. Had that not happened, people would have been less iffy about attending the movie in person, and this movie would have pulled in a much better opening. But... COVID's gotta COVID I guess... :-s
I thought it was good. Maybe not great but def. would have made Harold Ramis (who co-wrote the original) happy, had he been around to see it.
...I think the word you're looking for is "refuse." ;-)
Refuge is a safe place. Mmkay? :-P
Reinsertion would make sense because we already know from the 1st movie (and now the 4th) that humans can be reinserted into the matrix, or perhaps Reactivation, giving the viewer perhaps an indication that the AI has found a way to wirelessly jack in Red Pills (if for no other reason than mind control...) But then again, there's a case to be made that AI could figure out how to wirelessly control the minds of, as well as harvest electricity from, Red Pills... Even today, there have been small-scale wireless electricity successes, so it's not inconceivable that in a few hundred years, wireless power transmission would be perfected. Resurgence maybe? Those wouldn't be bad to consider for part 5. As for a potential part 6, I think the ultimate ending to the Matrix franchise would be Reckoning... As in part 6 would be the day of reckoning for the misdeeds committed on the human race by the AI.
As for the first reason, I imagine Weaving either felt too old for this kind of film, or more likely, he wasn't invited back simply because Lana Wachowski wanted mostly younger faces for the new installment(s?)... I mean, can you imagine The Architect and Smith reprising their roles? Hugo Weaving is 61, and Helmut Bakaitis is 77. Even as a sit-down role, The Architect probably wasn't into a potential 3-movie commitment. Weaving MIGHT have been able to pull it off at his age... But I suspect he probably had moved beyond the series, from a career perspective.
Regardless, assuming this movie spawns a new trilogy, Weaving would be pushing 70 by the time it finished, and Bakaitis would be in his mid 80s. Not only would the movie be physically harder on them than the rest of the cast, but they'd represent a much older demographic that this series just never appealed to.
As for Neo being called "Tom" instead of "Mr. Anderson..." Again I submit that with Jonathan Groff being a younger Agent Smith, with the idea within the Machine City being that he'd be more easily seen as a "peer" with Neo, rather than a ruthless boss-like character, And with Neil Patrick Harris playing a different, but essentially equal role with The Architect called "The Analyst," as someone who can be intimately close to Neo (thus able to keep better tabs on him and influence his behavior more so than The Architect could), these younger characters undoubtedly were meant to mask their roles and allow them closer access to Neo than their predecessors.
Know what I mean?
*sigh* I wish the IMDB trolls hadn't followed us here...
I kinda feel like this was "The Matrix Reloaded" for the new trilogy... But I don't REALLY mean that in a bad way... When Reloaded came out, everyone said it was a letdown, BUT... Reloaded was a necessary evil in order to bring the story to a close. In a similar way, Resurrections is the necessary evil in order to (I assume) make the next couple of films. And in that sense, yes, I think they did a decent job setting up a couple more films. I suspect that, as opposed to the original trilogy, there will be no need for "part 2" (which is essentially part 5 overall) of this new trilogy to be as clunky and full of exposition. Thus, I think part 2 and part 3 (aka parts 5 and 6 overall) of this new trilogy will be just as action packed and amazing as part 1 and 3 were in the original trilogy. The setup was taken care of in part 4, so there won't be nearly as much exposition driving the story in parts 5 and 6.
I think the best is yet to come for this reboot. The whole movie screamed "You ain't seen nothin' yet" to me. :-)
I'd give this movie an 8 easily... People just don't appreciate off-beat comedy... Anyone who gave this movie anything lower than 7 really has no idea how to enjoy a movie. I first saw this movie when I was probably 12-13, back after it came out. It was bizarre, sure... But it was funny as hell. :-)
Yeah, the ending was... Dare I say... Shameless? ;-)
Maybe that was the point?
I think the fact that it was something REALLY nice in a house full of shit was a huge indicator for me. :-p
Yes, she is. And she did a great job in that movie. :-)
Remember how Frank wanted to "get the old gang back together" to plan some great scam (that would presumably set them up for life)?
That was his plan, I guess. Steal and sell it.
I mean... it's done in the same manner, but you can't say it referenced Spies Like Us, since the time frame of this movie predates the cold war. And tbh I'm sure it's been done before in older movies too.
If you read the trivia on IMDB, you would know that this was a conscious choice from the beginning, based on the heavy references to Rosie's shoes, particularly how they were very often at his eye level. Like when she's pacing above him at the place he was getting physical therapy. The director is making the shoes a prominent feature of Rosie, so they would be easily recognizable when Jojo discovers them on a woman hanging from a noose. That and the director thought it would be too dark and traumatizing, both for Jojo and for the audience, to show Rosie's face. I liked the way they did it. You knew without having it spoon fed to you.
It's not that it was very popular... It's just... Lower-performing films like this one often get a renewed push for views around award season... Helps keep their movie in the mind of the Academy voters, and draw in some extra cash for the filmmakers. Movies often get a boost in ticket sales when they're being talked about for the Oscars and such.
Sooo... A guy named "Satan2016" is worried about a movie turning kids into Satanists...
Umm... Perhaps you're projecting? :-p
Or maybe it was intentional... I mean, the human race had (one would assume) been devastated by then... I know it may seem a huge risk... But a species still has an evolutionary need to continue despite whatever odds are thrown at them.