response 126 of 150:

Apr 29 14:43 UTC 2002

#125> Exactly. Ahmed Best has said in several different interviews that Lucas'
basic direction to him was that he should sound goofy and stupidly endearing
(my words, I don't remember Best's), and that it was Best, not Lucas, who came
up with the accent. The written dialog isn't very reminiscent of any cultural
stereotype, and the rest of the Gungans don't sound particularly Caribbean.
 
#124> An increasing number of movies have felt like video games to me; I think
the narrative structure of adventure games have worked their way into the
media (so even movies like "Falling Down," which I doubt was ever even
intended to be a video game, feel like that was their inspiration: Compare
"Falling Down" to Doom, with the main character getting successively larger
weapons). Given Lucas' consistent success in the videogame industry (he's had
few clinkers, and many successes) and his inconsistent success in the film
industry (he's had a few HUGE successes -- eight, depending on which you
count, seven of which were in two series [as well as American Grafitti]) and
his long dry spell (Tucker, Willow, Howard the Duck), it's not that surprising
to me that he'd be making movies with an eye on their video game potential.
But I agree, it's not really good filmmaking practice.

response 128 of 150:

Apr 29 17:39 UTC 2002

I dunno.  Episode 4 was okay, but a lot of the acting and writing isn't
so hot.  Granted, it didn't pander the way Ep. 1 did.  Episode 6 was
definately starting to pander.  As someone in _Clerks_ put it, it was "a
bunch of muppets."  I think a lot of people are right that Episode 5 is
the best Star Wars film; it's certainly the darkest.

response 130 of 150:

Apr 29 20:53 UTC 2002

Hopefully Jar Jar will get killed at some point.

response 132 of 150:

Apr 30 00:00 UTC 2002

If you want to compare the philosophy of The Matrix to a comparable work, go
with Huxley's "Brave New World," since it does touch on some of the same
issues (notably, the concept that what is "reality" for the masses is
constructed by an elite). Brave New World doesn't go so far as The Matrix --
instead of aliens constructing our minds in hyperreality, the intelligent
hyperelite control the masses through genetic engineering and drug control.
As such, it presents the issue in a way that can actually be addressed.
 
And that's my point in my critique of The Matrix: It presents things in new
and thought-provoking ways. Problems is, the new parts aren't
thought-provoking, and the thought-provoking parts aren't new. >=}
There are much better stories that deal with the same topics in better ways.
 
Most of the main actors have done better work. Fishburne, certainly. Reeves,
arguably. Then again, I think Joey Pant's best work was Guido the Killer Pimp.
;}
 
I think The Matrix is fine entertainment. If it were on TV and I had nothing
better to do, I'd leave it on. 
 
I do agree with the criticism that the Academy seems to like period pieces
for Best Picture. Of the last dozen Best Pictures, 10(!) have taken place
"some time in the past," including four true stories ("A Beautiful Mind",
"Titanic", "Braveheart", "Schindler's List"). Only "American Beauty" and "The
Silence of the Lambs" (and, arguably, "Forrest Gump") are "contemporary."
 
[Erp, I don't feel like editing -- "Titanic" is about real events, but it's
not a true story.]
 
And Oscar HATES Sci-Fi... Even if you want to say that "The Matrix" didn't
deserve the nod, what about "2001" or "A Clockwork Orange"? Looking through
the on-list, I don't see ANY Best Picture which might qualify as Sci-Fi (the
closest I see is a movie based on a book by a sci-fi writer, i.e., "Around
the World in 80 Days").

[erp, on-list > on-line list]

response 134 of 150:

Apr 30 03:34 UTC 2002

"The Matrix" would be a great movie, except for the dialogue.  The second time
I saw it I was suprised at how stupid most of the lines sounded.

response 136 of 150:

Apr 30 05:33 UTC 2002

That scene is well-liked by many, but it's not my favorite.

My favorite scene is actually the Oracle.  Actually, that's the best scene
by miles.  Scott is dead-on about the dialogue, though, which ranges from the
guffaw-producing to the embarassed-squirm producing.

response 138 of 150:

Apr 30 11:38 UTC 2002

The point y'all seem to be missing about Matrix was that not only were 
the technological effects revolutionary, the film was the first to ever 
be designed to take full advantage of the DVD format.  These might not be 
relevant to its overall quality as fim work, but they do account in large 
part for its popularity.  That said, I very much enjoyed watching it 
(with the possible exception of the tedious "kiss" scene near the end), 
and have done so more than once.

Though I much prefer the treatment "Dark City" gave the concept.  (Plus 
there's the Jennifer Connelly factor.)

response 140 of 150:

Apr 30 16:12 UTC 2002

I didn't see many effects in The Matrix that were revolutionary. The FX people
did seem to take great care in making sure you KNEW where the FX were, though.
What was revolutionary about The Matrix was its sense of style, and how it
presented the FX. The freeze-and-pan had been around a year or so before The
Matrix, IIRC, but it's now pretty much tied to it (that is, whenever I see
a freeze-and-pan, I think of The Matrix, whether the filmmmaker intends it
as a reference or not [usually, the reference is intended]).
 
I wouldn't say that Episode One is a better movie than The Matrix. That's
apples and oranges. They took very different approaches to FX, for instance...
in The Matrix, the goal was to wow the audience, so you're constantly reminded
of where the FX are. It has lots of very cool "Ohhhhhh.... neeeat..." moments.
In Phantom Menace, the goal was to create as realistic a world as possible,
so the FX are everpresent but low-key (allegedly, there's only five scenes
in the entire movie that don't contain *some* computer play, and the
Gungan/Droid battle is almost entirely rendered), so I'd say those times where
it's obvious you're seeing an effect (except for sheer implausibility), Lucas
has failed but The Matrix has succeeded.
 
As far as the writing, the acting, and the directing go, I'd say they're
comparably well done, actually. They were both good, entertaining movies.
Neither was as good as the hype or as bad as the sour grapes. But few movies
ARE as good as the hype, when the hype is as high as it was for those two.
 
I'll readily admit I respond negatively to hype, so even though I think "The
Matrix" is better than "Dark City," alone, I enjoyed "Dark City" more when
I saw it.
 
#133> What's the relevance of SW:A New Hope? I'd said that no sci-fi pic has
ever won Best Picture. Star Wars didn't win Best Picture. It won technical
Oscars, which often go to sci-fi flicks (The Matrix won several technicals).

response 142 of 150:

Apr 30 20:41 UTC 2002

Only because Rocky didn't have Farrah Fawcett in a skimpy outfit.

response 144 of 150:

May 1 01:46 UTC 2002

I got the impression that you were discussing nominations, and Ep 4 was
definitely nominated.

Pacing in films is underrated, even today.  I found the pacing and the musical
treatment of the pacing of LOTR ep1 to be unfortunate at best, horrid at
worst.  I try not to hold it against a film that's trying to fit a big fat
book into a watchable film slot, but it still left things to be desired.  

A well-paced film is often forgiven for quite a bit.

response 146 of 150:

May 1 14:18 UTC 2002

I'm curious -- what is it about The Matrix that made it particularly
well-suited to DVD?  I only ever saw it in theaters, so I'm not sure what I'm
missing.

response 148 of 150:

May 2 10:21 UTC 2002

resp:146  My understanding is that the Matrix is just chock-full of 
extras in the DVD, starting with alternate viewpoints you can edit 
into the movie.  You can take a look at computer animation sketches 
for certain scenes, etc., etc., etc.  I think brighn's point was the 
Matrix DVD was the first DVD to really show how much and how many 
kinds of extras you can put on that medium.

Yes?