5punk

Mr. Johnson wrote: This. Nobody remembers Titanic, mind.

It sank without a trace.

Apart from all the oscars. And being the biggest grossing film of all time. And Winslet's strangely curled nipple.

Well, it was highly praised at the time but I never hear anyone say 'Remember Titanic? that was a good film wasn't it?' I think it fits in the same category as avatar since it was quite impressive to watch with all the technological marvels that Hollywood could do at the time, but had a pretty weak story.

That seems to be the problem with most entertainment these days. They keep trying to make them prettier...but forgot to add substance to it.

Thats one of the reasons I was watching a lot of BBC America shows. They weren't hollywood polished, but they had more substance.

Castle's 1st season had mostly substance. 2nd season, they substituted 1/2 of the substance for cuteness.

I seem to be rambling...move along please...

I don't really think 5punk is the best forum or demographic to judge the film Titanic. >.<

Is a bit like judging a strip tease in a church.

I dunno, I thought it was technologically awesome, decent enough story, probably the first sex scene most girls saw and liked.

But yeah, I don't know anyone who's actually said, yeah, that was a great movie.

See also: The Matrix, it was awesome at the time, but it's not actually that good, and ruined by its sequels.

The Matrix was style over content too. It just did stylish really well.

The first Matrix was good, it posed questions about reality and what we percieve is true, couple it with a lead character who learns and progresses throughout the film and you were left with a fairly solid plot coupled with awesome cinematography.

The other two were bollocks in relation to the first film though.

buzzmong wrote:The first Matrix was good, it posed questions about reality and what we percieve is true, couple it with a lead character who learns and progresses throughout the film and you were left with a fairly solid plot coupled with awesome cinematography.

Or, an acceptable plot, that was all a bit. meh, propped up with wire fighting and some shiny new filming tricks.

Oh, and I'm not convinced philosophy has anything to do with the quality of a movie.

I'd agree with that, but at least it posed questions that made you think, even if some of the answers it supplied were a bit preposterous.

Can't really deny it was a decent film though.

Meh, wireless jesus saga with some solipsism sprinkled on does not equal a good plot to my mind. And it wasn't the first to do wire-fu and green screen either. But it does as a mix offer up something that I do think is a good film.

The second one advances the fx nicely and the plot okay, I liked the ghosts/merovingian bits and the truck smash.

The third is just wank except for the old grizzled dude in the walker giving it plenty on the cannons. Reeves acts (he can act, go see devil's advocate) like a bit of oak in it for the pay cheque.

buzzmong wrote:Can't really deny it was a decent film though.

Exactly.

The Matrix is one of my favorite movies. The other 2 had excellent parts.

I didn't see GITS or anything else b4 it so it was all new to me. It was well put together in all aspects. There were a few weak points but for the most part...awesome.

Stop the hating...its 2010 !

The Matrix was a mega important movie and a turning point in Western cinema.

I think people are missing the point about the use of effects in the movie. No it wasn't the first to use a difference or chroma key ... In fact you might be surprised that the first difference key was using in BEN HUR in the 50's! Chroma keying and wires *is not* the be all and end all of VFX. In fact, you know in Forest Gump when they removed Lt. Dan's legs? Most of that was done manually via rotoscoping.

It did turn certain concepts and effects main stream, and bring considerable advances in 3D photography. And much like LOTR, introduced a number of new methods of thinking and applications to the VFX work flow.

It proved that Western Audiences would react to a story outside of the Fast and Curious or many other piles of horse crap. It changed the face of martial arts in Western film to more performance and character based. It was more than just style over content - the characters actually demonstrated their character through their movements. Arguebly this opened the way for Jason Bourne, and influenced films such as Casino Royale where the action isn't just a break from the story line.

And as far as action movies being style of content ... Wanted was style over content. The Matrix was a highly successful action film. In the first Matrix you will struggle to find a scene which doesn't have a meaning or drive the plot forward ... In Wanted every second scene exists simply because its 'cool'. Style over content was a plot device in the Matrix, in Wanted it was just another way to make Angelina Jolie look angry and sexy or make some awesome explosion set up.

The Matrix to me belongs somewhere in the top 100 films of all time. Whether it's near the top or the bottom I don't care, but any film that's in the top 100 to me is a worth while and well made movie.

I think it's easy to try and dismiss anything as over rated once it gets a few years old. The Matrix is a decade old and still holds meaning and power not just to VFX artists but to fight choreographers, indie film makers, and your average viewer.

I know you're not specifically referring to the IMDB top100, and I know how much you hate The Shawshank Redemption.

But I'm gonna throw it out there as an awesome film

Lots of story, not much style.

Lexy wrote:I think it's easy to try and dismiss anything as over rated once it gets a few years old. The Matrix is a decade old and still holds meaning and power not just to VFX artists but to fight choreographers, indie film makers, and your average viewer.

I'm not sure it's that stuff gets dismissed, more forgotten with time.

Perhaps our appreciation of some movies lessens the more we see them, and see them imitated? Watch a movie once and it's great, twice and it's good.

3 times, 3 sequels, 12 parodies and 14 things it inspired? Meh.

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:Perhaps our appreciation of some movies lessens the more we see them, and see them imitated? Watch a movie once and it's great, twice and it's good.

I can watch movies 100's of times (and I do) and not lose any appreciation cause of it. Same goes with music.

And as far as sequels and imitations go, if they are not as good, they are seen once and forgotten. They don't deter my appreciation of the one I liked.

Like the Star Trek movies. From the ones I've seen, I really liked II and IV and still do. Hated the others and pretty much forgotten.

Maybe you're losing appreciation cuz you never really liked them in the first place...

Perhaps it's just that my tastes change and develop over time?

So while I used to be happy with the OHWOWTHAT'SSOCOOL of the matrix, now I actually require a plot that's like, good. (or of course, none at all in the case of action trash) Rather than some idea that'd've made a great short, or episode of the outer limits, dragged out into 90 minutes of leather trousers and wire fighting.



Still, there's loads of movies I can watch over and over, and others that I like a lot, but have worn out by watching too much, and just fade from memory and favour because of that, Like the first 6 seasons of the simpsons.

I agree that The Matrix is an influential film, and a good film, but it's still what it is because of the action rather than the plot. It might just be me, but I'd already asked myself the question 'what if what we see isn't actually the real world' when I was about 8. By the time The Matrix was released the revelation of our world being computer generated didn't have much novelty for me. Hell, the Syndicate Wars intro did the same thing well before it. Comparisons to Wanted is damning by faint praise. However, I can watch Matrix over and over because it looks great. The plot's not bad, it's just not a big revelation for me, but at least it doesn't distract you by being cringeworthy like many action films.

Avatar? I'm not hating, I've just had little interest in it and the more hype it gets the less interested I become. maybe they should have made more of the stompy robots than the blue guys in the trailers (who incidentally somehow look like bad CGI even though they're not CGI).

amblin wrote:5/10 - all style over substance, basic plot and acting, good enough as a tech demo. Not awful, not great, utterly middle of the road and very forgettable.

I didnt hate it, and wasnt annoyed that I had spent time watching it, but was not blown away with pure awesome either.

It has also lead me to the conclusion that my eyes are not quite right in some way: Yeah, it looked 3D, but I don't think that actually added in any way to my enjoyment of the film. It did give me a little bit of a headache though.

Comparisons to Wanted is damning by faint praise.

They may be on the same side of the scale, but they are faaaaar apart.