Change Your Image
nathan-254
Reviews
The Matrix Revolutions (2003)
Philosophy yeah right
SPOILERS Different people like different things in films, no doubt. Some loved the Matrix for its mind bending action, others for its dabbling in what a lot of people are calling "philosophy". The question with all films is how well the film realises and balances the elements. I felt the original was slightly overrated (though good), because I'm not the type to be impressed by flashy effects alone. But the plot of the Matrix was amazing and intriguing, which is what kept me interested, though even in the case of this film I was disappointed that too much time was given to un-engaging action sequences. I like action sequences with a bit of tension and drama, but even M1 only offered this on a few occasions, particularly as the main character just failed to encourage empathy or demonstrate any humanity. I would have preferred edgy realistic fights not comic book set pieces where characters walk on the ceiling in slow mo. Not enough time was given to the kind of scenes where characters rush to points where they can jack out of the matrix, with agents on their trail, or to little touches like the deja vu cat. Despite this it was the concept of MAtrix which makes it so memorable.
Reloaded was an improvement in some ways but not in others. The balance and logic between the action and the "philosophising" was much worse, which made the film contrived. The formula was clear: sections of dialogue followed by action set pieces. The formulaic one on one fight scenes, where adversaries face each other down, are even more phony looking as soon as matrix powers get used. They also become more and more predictable as Neo becomes more and more powerful. The effects are actually quite poor in the "kung fu" scenes, with the combatants often looking no more realistic than puppets. The tedious fight of Neo against thousands of pixillated playstation 2 Smiths gave the whole film a faintly ridiculous feel.
On the upside some of the action within the Matrix Reloaded was a bit engaging such as the car chase, and those who enjoy the "philosophy" are satisfied by extensions of the plot and new questions raised. I find it a real shame though that the idea of an actual story in a sci fi film is seen by some reviewers as "philosophising", either as a negative or positive criticism. It's because of morons like this that the actual story of Reloaded had to be kept safely boxed up in neat little scenes and not allowed to get in the way of pointless and utterly predictable action. I like the filmwork used to show the differences between the real world, the Matrix, and various other off shoots of it and the eerie impression given. It was a shame so little time was given to these parts focusing on intrigue within the Matrix and new interesting characters like the Frenchman. But the introduction of action in the real world was satisfying, and some attempts at characterisation were commendable if largely unsuccessful.
Revolutions, by this token, is a terrible anticlimax. The lovers of cartoon action sequences will prefer this to the last one, but none of the plot questions are resolved. Instead of the thriller template of the previous two, we now have a semi-biblical war film which does little to stretch the imagination. I'm not one to rubbish a sequel for venturing in to new generic territory, but very few sequels carry out this transition smoothly. The question must be asked: why dispense with what gave the first one its trendy originality and replace it with run of the mill fare? The effects were unconvincing and cartoony, the characters uncompelling, wooden and often a little surplus to requirements. The sets also gave Zion a T.V feel. The entire battle was far fetched. What was the point of the walkers? If humans could construct these walkers of dubious military value, why not just build weapons instead and have them controlled from a safer position? And is that not the world's stupidest design for a war vehicle, with the driver expose at the front?! The opportunity is not taken to further explore the more interesting themes of the trilogy, and though the ending is quite surprising, it is rushed and augmented by another phony battle with agent Smith, itself tipped off by lame dialogue.
The only scenes I liked were the train man scene and the scene with Smith and the oracle. It really annoys me the way the directors kept these scenes bottled up, so that they really only added more questions. The suspicion is now of a thinly devised subplot which can only be alluded to to create a sense of mystery. Neo's conversation with the oracle is now unenlightening and somewhat lazy I felt. To resolve the trilogy the quasi-religious imagery is drawn heavily on, supported by meaningless mumbo-jumbo about balancing equations. There are no further twists and no satisfactory resolution.
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
The worst film ever made.
O.K here are the problems with the first film of the prequel series as compared to the originals: (I'm sorry if, like a previous reviewer, anyone feels I am "over intellectualising" the film but if you just want to gormlessly lap up any childish rubbish sent your way then don't even bother reviewing)
No, the originals were not great cinematic masterpieces, they were classic, well crafted epic blockbusters that inspired for a number of reasons. In fact Lucas had the opportunity to outstrip the originals had he so wished. I believe that Lucas had no intention of making a good film; his mind was on two things: MONEY and EGO. He wanted to make a series in the style of "Titanic", which many would love, and the rest would grudgingly admit to having found entertaining. But he made a crucial mistake. He underestimated the intelligence of even your average American moron. He attempted the biggest con in cinema history, and failed. Even the American public was not going to let him take the p*ss out of them so blatantly.
>Star Wars was essentially a war film in space. Simple idea. Just chuck in some authentic characters, amazing sets and a brilliant score and you're away. The master stroke was the addition of the mystical "force".
But what made the original films - and any self respecting fan will acknowledge this - was its humanity. The only way the whole thing could be kept from being laughably absurd was the injection of a healthy dose of believable people to set against the unfamiliar background. That way the story had some emotion.
Tatooine, in ANH really does look like the arse end of the galaxy, unlike the well developed shiny planet of TPM. We understand why Luke wants to get away. Even the narrow mindedness of uncle Owen is convincing. The film actually builds up tension as the stormtroopers search for the heroes in Mos Eisley, while TPM is completely lacking in this attribute. Notice how Lucas cleverly replaces stormtroopers with droids so that the Jedi's can spend the whole film hacking them to pieces - which would be far too gory in the case of actual soldiers.
Then there's the main aspect that adds that little bit extra to ANH: the enigmatic back story of Obi-Wan, Darth Vader and Luke. In contrast in TPM we have the unspeaking, storyless "Darth Maul" and no explanation of the opposition of the Sith and the Jedi. And anyone who found "Darth Sidious" exciting has to be pretty stupid. That side of things gets minimal time in the film, and it's just a case of "Oh right so that's the Emperor then". It's like Lucas made all three prequels without managing to really cover any of the interesting stuff.
Lucas destroys the mysticism of the Force with some pointless "midiclorian" idea, and then conversely can't be satisfied with Vader being a human who turned bad and makes him in to some kind of counter-Christ virgin birth figure. I have no problem with Anakin being a child, and the podrace thing has a certain logic to it, as well as the scene of him leaving his mother, but from there on it's impossible for the central character to exhibit any character or realistically participate in any action. It would have been far more sensible if there were at least some negative aspects of the future Vader's childhood life, or if he had some residual Jedi abilities (or if he was a bit older).
An earlier reviewer suggested that Lucas is being castigated for trying new ideas instead of remaking the originals. On the contrary. He chose to use old elements, such as CP30 and R2D2 and the planet tatooine, when this would only give the films a feeling of gimmicky fakeness. Anyone with a brain would find it odd that 3PO forgot that he had been made on Tatooine or met Obi Wan, or that Obi Wan would completely forget the droids: "I don't seem to remember ever owning a droid". Then Lucas creates new elements such as Amidala and Jar Jar, who are just poor analogues of characters from the originals. The gunguns were basically the ewoks (natives!) in even more annoying form, and Amidala just an insipid and wooden version of Leia! (Jar Jar = Chewbacca).
The most amazing thing of all was that Lucas actually denied us what we came to see: amazing battle scenes. The final space battle scene was rushed and undramatic. The one on Naboo was choreographed, cartoony and unrealistic. The blaster shoot out in the palace was perfunctory and pedestrian. At no point was there EVER a sense that the good guys might not win. And to cap it all, Lucas goes against the entire spirit of the originals by making the good guys win by pure chance, not through any striving or ability! ANH thrived on the fact that the audience was rooting for the underdog against all odds. TPM was basically the opposite of everything a straight forward blockbuster should be, whilst completely lacking the depth of character, acting, plot or action sequences that it would need to be anything more.
Lucas focused on the Darth Vader story, which we all wanted to see, but did not develop it at all, so that we were left totally unsatisfied at the end. As a result the rest of the film was just a pointless, meaningless background with no adversity at all.
This is probably the worst film ever made.
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
How brainless do you have to be to enjoy this?
In some ways this might be the best of the prequel sequence. Not to say it's in any way good, but it does sit happily with most of the nondescript Hollywood tripe that presumably all those reviewers giving it good reviews on this site thrive on.
The reason it's the best of the three prequels is that it doesn't p*** you off too much, either by insulting your intelligence and maturity, like Phantom Menace, or by dashing your every hope like Revenge of the Sith.
Despite a tenuous plot which seems like Lucas dreamt it up on the toilet, Clones delivers a simplistic and infantile satisfaction value simply by taking you for a brief spin through a few fairly interesting visual environments and returning to the same old staple diet of light sabres and blasters. I guess a bit of imagination would have been too much to ask though. But the film shares nothing what so ever with the smooth flowing picaresque style of the original trilogy and the whole story seems contrived and slightly humorous. If Lucas just stuck to shoot em'up battles etc. it might be passable, but he feels the need to linger on slushy love scenes devoid of any chemistry or personality. The originals seemed epic because they worked on every level, from massive battles right down to individual characters, it was all believable. Even the Imperial officers were convincing.
In addition to this the entire picture is utterly devoid of any drama and is forced to rely on stupid gimmicks, such as turning Yoda in to some kind of goblin on amphetamines, to retain the audiences attention. There clearly is a particular breed of moron that found this scene enjoyable, but everyone in the cinema I was at just cracked up!
Any serious fan of the originals who tapped in to a few of their subtleties, would have enjoyed the wisdom and HUMILITY of the original Yoda character. That's why seeing so many people praising this forgettable and bland film ultimately degrades not only the Star Wars fans, but also the original films themselves. To anyone sincerely claiming to like this film: "YOU OBVIOUSLY NEVER GOT THE ORIGINALS AND CAN'T CLAIM TO BE A FAN" And as for the sycophants: I don't know how much they're paying you but PLEASE, if you've got a braincell in your heads, stop doing it for all our sakes.
And what passes for a final battle scene is in fact just like something off your play station, except the graphics are worse and more tacky looking.
Let me emphasise: NO adult human being with an I.Q above that of some primordial slime, could, in all sincerity, give this film 10/10.
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
CRAP special FX (+where are the women?)
The sad thing about this film is that it gives you a tantalising glimpse of what might have been had George Lucas got his head out from his own rear end and decided to make another trilogy of decent films.
Revenge of the Sith, in my opinion, just about managed to touch on the quality of the originals , presumably because only a complete idiot could have failed to at least find some kind of plot to structure it around. Nevertheless we are still forced to endure the self indulgent ramblings back and forth from planet to planet, just so that Lucas can show off his CGI abilities. The scripting is still terrible. The acting remains universally wooden, with the exception of Ian McDiarmid as the Emperor, who over acts ridiculously to compensate, to the point of more or less forsaking that saccharine sinisterness that gave Return of the Jedi most of its character. Even though this film is really entirely character centred, Lucas demonstrates once and for all that he is completely devoid of any understanding of, or sympathy for, character.
A New Hope was a very simple film which did not require him to tackle the difficult task of character development, which was why the first Star Wars was able to ride on the quality of its actors, who brought the film to life and made it believable. Lucas' lame attempts at character in ROTS, on the other hand, just seem laughable to me, such as the shallow and predictable idea that Annakin turns to the dark side purely because of a dream he has!
The biggest character conversion in the film, to me, is not Annakin but Obi Wan, played by the apathetic McGregor, who goes from Annakin's best friend to worst enemy over night. At no point are we given the impression that Obi Wan is wrestling with the thought of killing his life long best mate and apprentice and I found it impossible to equate this cruel and seemingly remorseless individual with the fatherly old jedi of later films.
To my mind, the reason the originals were so visually alluring to young eyes, was that they took elements of the familiar and put them in a space setting. Luke may have been fighting massive mechanical walkers, but he was doing so on a completely REAL ice field. In the opening scenes of Empire there was the real feeling that he was up against the elements in the coldest place in the Galaxy. The droids actually got dirty! This was what ultimately made them believable. Can anyone seriously say that they think the visuals in any of the prequels are better than the originals? To my eyes ROTS looked just like a cartoon, and you could tell that the whole film was structured around what scenes Lucas wanted to fit in. At no point was there any sense of reality to the war that was going on. Even the light sabre duels were ridiculously over choreographed and bereft of any drama. The "grand finale" of Annakin and Obi Wan floating down the river of lava looked completely FAKE.
The only new characters Lucas has chosen to add to this trilogy are probably the most hated character in the history of cinema and Samuel L. Jackson playing Samuel L. Jackson. Why has he not taken the opportunity of any of these films to create a single female character other than the insipid Padme? Is he a misogynist as well as a terrible director and writer?
I saw an interview with him in which he said that when he came to make ROTS he realised he had enough material to make three films and had to squash it in to one. Hang on a minute, but didn't he just make two other films and fill them up with instantly forgettable, plot free drivel? And now he's saying he could have made three films about what we all wanted to see!! The man has a lot to answer for. All he cares about is money and ego or he would at least have got some decent script-writers on the job like in Empire and Jedi.
In some ways Phantom and Clones were more tolerable: you just watch it and, like with so many other Hollywood blockbusters, just wish you never wasted your money. With Sith you have a genuine feeling that the concept was there to make a true masterpiece, which makes you feel downright insulted by the whole thing. I honestly think maybe Lucas wanted to see just how crap a film he could convince the kind of gormless morons bigging it up on this sight to like! I'll bet he's having a right laugh right now at Skywalker Ranch.
Solaris (2002)
One of the best sci-fi films of recent years
Comparisons with blade runner are certainly apt in the case of this film, not least by virtue of its brilliant visual language, excellent acting and subtle themes. An eerie sense of mystery is maintained throughout, which had me gripped until the end. In fact I felt this film was at least half an hour too short, basically ending as soon as the central theme of Kelvin's desire to resurrect his dead wife - excellently realised by the two actors - is fully played out. I was disappointed, however, that the film failed to explore in any depth the presence of the other "visitors" on the ship, which did not fit neatly in to the "life after death" theme. Of course we are told "there are no answers, only choices", but I would certainly have appreciated a deeper exploration of the choices made by the other characters. It's one of those films to leave a bittersweet taste in the mouth; for example the decision not to include Gordon's "visitor" at all I found a bit galling at first, but in retrospect may have been a brilliant device. I would have liked to have seen more about the moral dilemma facing these humans in the face of the "facsimiles".
Though the acting was brilliantly restrained, I did feel the script denied the humanity of the astronauts to some extent, and would have enjoyed just a touch more psychodrama. None of the characters appeared to take any interest in each other at all, and though this was certainly consistent with the powerful character of Gordon, and though Kelvin was understandably preoccupied, the incoherence of the third character was rendered somewhat pointless by the fact that the visiting psychologist made no attempt to do his job.
While I would like to point out that simply visually suggesting Philosophical themes is not quite the same as exploring them, this is still an excellent sci-fi film that fits firmly in to the tradition of Blade Runner and 2001 and the original Solaris.