How BR has aged

Every time I have seen the matrix I am impressed that it still has impact on me. Especially since so many movies have copied it's cinematic techniques. All these other movies tend to make me cringe(even crouching tiger hidden dragon,which is influenced by the same HK cinema that the matrix is) yet matrix seems to still work. Partially because you know that the reality they are working in is artificial you can accept defiance of gravity and such. but it still seems so much better put together in every way. I am a movie snob and I have a hard time finding "too" much that is "cheezy" in the matrix. All movies show their flaws in repeated viewings, but the matrix still seems to hold strong. Honestly I personally think if someone one thinks it is cheezy and pretentious they are trying to hard to be Iconoclastic and very likely missing the point.

My missing of the point is probably caused by<BR>reading too much SF/cyberpunk literature during last 20 years, because I hardly found anything original on its basic idea.<BR>(Just the name "Matrix" for a futuristic computer network is original like hell...) <BR><BR><BR><BR><font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: BR796164 on 2003-02-18 03:01 ]</font>

BR stands up well to me because of these two factors.<BR>1. PLOT - hidden meanings - character depth<BR>2. MUSIC SCORE - it was engineered for the film and not a slab of popular music fom the 80s. <BR>Obviously you can expand on that, but you really notice a film if the music is punctiated by pop/ time specific pieces...<BR>

'Original' is very hard to do...
[addsig]

Movies are a visual medium...if you want a good story read a book...I always say. It really bugs me when someone compairs books to movies. they are completely different mediums. Apples and oranges. it would be like comparing dante's inferno to bosch's painting. I was impressed that the matrix took ideas that I had only read about up untill then and put them in a visuall format that worked. All other attempts up to that point were star trek plots and only slightly interesting. If you compare BR plotwise to DADOES and other books of similar nature BR does not deliver...but it does if you just watch the movie and get the visual story. It is something books can not do and fail in their attempts to do ...A picture does tell a thousand words and can speak to you in ways only movies can. And sometimes I don't care who came up with an idea first...I care more who did it best and most effectively. Both BR and the Matrix borrowed heavily from lots of outside sources and put it together in form that had its own life (frankenstien if you will) Film noir,honk kong cinema,anime,music videos,manga,heavy metal comics,Cyber punk are what these movies were spawned from. That does not make them cheap copies of their parents, but new forms of.

Sorry Ridleynoir, but I do care where the original idea came from.<BR>Blade Runner is a case in point because PKD went on record, just before his untimely demise, as saying he liked what Scott had made of his book. I would not look back on this film with so much pleasure if I thought Dick considered it a travesty of his intention. I would want to know why (because I do like the film) but fortunately the issue does not arise. Dick thought his idea was being conveyed, just in a different medium, and being conveyed well.<BR>One cannot ask Mary Shelley what she thought of Kenneth Branagh's 'Frankenstein' for example, or, for that matter, Bram Stoker and the films made about Dracula. <BR>If Science Fiction is the 'literature of ideas' (not my quote unfortunately) then the 'idea' is central to the novel or the movie made from it. If the movie has no literary source, then fair enough, but the question still arises 'what is the idea?' or 'what is the issue?'. Many SF novels are now able to be filmed thanks to the advances in SFX technology but how many of the really 'big' novels actually see the light of day? And that opens up a whole new can of worms of course (!?) <BR>If I see one ray of hope it is in directors such as David Cronenberg (who has been meddling with SF for years). He made a bloody good job of 'Crash' and, although a 70's novel, it is still too much for the usual suspects.<BR>And as a last thought for the time being, have you noticed how little credit is given to the originators of these ideas. 'Sky Television' saw fit to tell me that George Clooney was starring in 'Solaris', it also told me Soderberg had written the screenplay etc....but it neglected to mention this film is a remake and was based on the novel by Stanislav Lem made orinally into a movie in '72. <BR>Adieu <BR> <BR><BR><BR>_________________<BR>The Future Is Old<BR><BR><font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jch on 2003-02-19 20:24 ]</font><BR><BR><font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jch on 2003-02-19 20:25 ]</font>

I haven't seen Sonderbergh's Solaris yet, but from what I've read in reviews, it's neither a direct adaptation of the book, nor a remake of Tarkovsky's film...

Then why have a movie version at all if the book had conveyed the idea already? are they like the paintings, sculpture and stained glass windows in church as a way to convey the ideas to illiterates? Maybe, But thankgod for movies like BR and the matrix that do go above and beyond to create something we enjoy watching for their own sakes. ironicly at one time books were considered corrupting influences that encouraged people to not do their work and long for escapist settings.

Believe me BR796164, from clips I have seen and the publicity, Soderberg has adapted Lems novel in exactly the same way as Tarkovsky did in 1972. He has adapted it into the visual medium whereas Lems novel was a sequence of pieces that gradually told the story.<BR>And if it is not a remake then one must ask why has he chosen that title for an identical plot-line with characters bearing the same name as the original?<BR>And now I'm really going to stick my neck out in response to ridleynoir's view.<BR>Yes, I do think many SF ideas that are adapted into films are to inform or enlighten the 'illiterate', inasmuch as they popularise an idea, whatever it might be. Get the idea across and then people start thinking. God forbid! they might even start thinking for themselves. <BR>The point is that people should be aware of where these ideas originate from, who they come from. Is it Hollywood making a fast buck on the back of the latest SFX technology or is it someone, somewhere, putting up the money because they thought that a particular idea was worth putting across and worth doing well? I'd rather watch a second rate movie with a good idea (and I've seen plenty) than a blockbuster with no ideas (and likewise).<BR>If all this makes me an ideallist, so what?<BR>Its nice to have a dream. <BR><BR>_________________<BR>The Future Is Old<BR><BR><font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jch on 2003-02-20 18:40 ]</font><BR><BR><font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jch on 2003-02-20 18:41 ]</font>

Hmmm, thanks! I am desperate to see it, as such a movie is a rare example in Hollywood production.

Just getting back to <!-- BBCode Start --><B>Blade Runner</B><!-- BBCode End --> for a minute, I watched it on my new 32" Widescreen TV last night, and I must say it must be the best looking film ever made, especially considering its over 20 years of age. Its amazing looking, and through the s-video even the current WB DVD looks awesome..an entirely cinematic movie.

ridleynoir about The Matrix---"Honestly I personally think if someone one thinks it is cheezy and pretentious they are trying to hard to be Iconoclastic and very likely missing the point."<BR><BR>Nope, not me. I am certainly not the type of person to say "Look at me, I don't like this movie that everyone else likes, aren't I different or cool?" That's not it at all. And it's certainly not an issue of me not understanding it.<BR><BR>For of all, I do not hate The Matrix. I think it is a very ambitious movie that is above average(but above average is still not saying much).<BR><BR>It just looks and feels much too slick. There are some movies that you get drawn into because they feel REAL(don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it can't be a fantasy type movie). It feels like a reality, with real people that you are transported to for 2 hours or so. Then, there are the majority of movies that look and feel like MOVIES. For instance, it has "movie talk", not the way real people talk, but artificial, unrealistic dialogue.<BR><BR>It's a lot of things that all add up to me in this movie. Here are a few off the top of my head.<BR><BR>-The dumb character names(Neo? Only 13 year olds who first find out what the prefix "neo" means and add it to their screen names(Neo-Jedi) think this is cool. Most of the other names are dumb, also.<BR><BR>-The visuals. Is it just me, or did the late 90's see the emergence of this kind of pop culture, half-assed looking trendy "dark" look? There's no brooding intensity to this, I think it's unimaginative.<BR><BR>-The philosophical gobbledygook dialogue. Gets old, tries too hard.<BR><BR>-Stupid moments. Slow motion bullet dodging? The whole kung fu training sequence I found kind of annoying, too. Resurrected by a kiss?<BR>Then when Neo is being chased in the subway by an agent, the guy is calling him in a threatening tone, and calls him Mr. Anderson. Neo throws him down triumphntly, and in a ridiculous "trying to be cool" moment, he's says in his best tough guy voice "MY NAME IS NEO". I thought it was one of this movie's worst moments.<BR><BR>-Ummm, being beaten over the head with the religious references. He's the saviour in the computer age everybody, don't you get it?<BR><BR>Again, this is a very well made movie, is kind of fun, but not my cup of tea. Don't think for one minute that I don't like it because it's action, I'm not some foreign film loving art f*g(lol). Heck, if you sit me down in front of "Home Alone", I'll be glued to the TV set everytime(yeah yeah laugh it up, so I like the house).<BR><BR>I really hope this post doesn't come across as me acting angry, because it's not. I just knew I made the comment earlier of how I thought this movie was pretentious and kind of cheesy and you were responding to that. I'm probably in the minority here, but this is how I feel about the Matrix.<BR><BR>Have a better one <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif"><BR><BR><font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Lost Painting on 2003-03-05 01:15 ]</font>

Ok...I agree with many if not all of your points. It still doesn't diminish the movie for me however. I happen to like alot of the things you critisized about it as it apealed to me to be a sense of "style" that I enjoy. It most definately had a comic book...or should I say anime feel to it that worked for me. I guess what I am saying is that it's "formula" quality worked for me because it was purposefull and worked in the context of the movie unlike so many movies nowdays that have copied it or it's predisessors. The movie was all about style and flash and was honest in its focus on that. If it tried to be more complex in its characters, plot and dialog it would not have worked. it would have lost touch with the architypes it was conjuring. Then it would have severed our sense of belief that needed us to believe in the unbelievable as an animated film does. It is no small feat to make that work. So many movies today try but miss that point as in anything with jet li for example. It is also definately in contrast to films like Alien and and star wars that use almost Cinema Veritae techniques to get you into the drama. But when films like that try to show too much they break apart and lose your sense of belief.(i.e. phantom menace)

Don't worry, you don't have to explain why you liked it. I know it did a lot of things well, and I get you. People just like different things, that's just the way it is.<BR><BR>I'll say this. It's good for what it is(sci-fi action). But when it comes to action, I'd rather watch something like Die Hard, I guess.

I totally agree with you Intellidroid
[addsig]