I thought AI was cool. I've never understood the hatred towards it.
Movies you love but (most) everyone else hates
- Thread starter Myasishchev
- Start date
I believe the reference you refer to is towards Eskimos not America Indians. Two separate groups.[/QUOTE]
Are we not counting Eskimos as American Indians? Okay. I suppose they were part of later migrations.
Colonel Green said:
Okay, this is the most fucking unfair things I've ever read in my entire life.
That's the basis for the whole series, yes.
The "flash-forwards" he experiences in Zion could be read as subconscious thoughts and images picked up in the Matrix but not expressed until some later time. As for broadcasting signals, the fact that Sentinels operate individually suggests that they have broadcasting transmitters of their own. So Neo's theoretical transmitter wouldn't have to be that strong at all; it could be like an iTouch picking up a wireless internet connection in a Starbucks. That, and the whole upper levels of the planet could be bathed in a low-level Machine radio frequency could for all we know.
Ethernet can yield stronger and faster connections than wireless.
I admit that these explanations are somewhat tenuous, and if you hate the sequels for them I certainly can't blame you. The philosophical implications of the transmitter hypothesis are also a bit iffy: in the first movie, pretty much all machines were inherently evil at worst and dehumanizing at best. By the end of Revolutions, however, the hero is a full-on cyborg and the reformed Matrix looks like a relatively pretty place to live. It's almost as if the Wachowskis decided that living hooked up to a computer for hours and hours on end isn't all that bad... so long as they got their royalties.
Of course, then there's the other alternative theory to the false (imho) "blue matrix" explanation, and that's simply that Neo's got some Jedi-style supernatural magic even in the real world. And since that magic only concretely expresses itself in digital terms, the philosophical result would be much the same as above.
Yeah I liked that one. Although, I never read the book before seeing the film, and I think that's what ruins it for some people.
Whoever said Sky Captain - I'm with you on that one too. Great pulp-style fantasy action flick.
Also I think TMP is brilliant, although I can mostly understand why other people dislike it.
Last edited:
What's quantum entanglement?
Lara Croft: Tomb Raider and Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life (Both films suffer somewhat from the same things that make it so I can't stand the first Mission: Impossible movie [a whole lot of confusion about what's actually going on, plot-wise, at certain crucial points in the narrative], but, overall, they're pretty fun 'female action flicks', and Jolie's portrayal of Lara is pretty much spot-on)
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (At World's End suffers from the 'three-quel syndrome' that had started to become a trend by the time it was released, but still manages to deliver a pretty fun experience that also fixes one of the biggest flaws with its predecessor Dead Man's Chest - the 'forcedness' of Elizabeth's obsession/fascination with Jack Sparrow - without outright discarding that plot point, and without, as is the case in DMC, ultimately demeaning her character)
Star Trek: Insurrection (I've come to find that ST: Insurrection tends to get a bad rap among the ST fandom, but I personally think it's a pretty good movie, and consider it to be my favorite of the films in the franchise that I've actually seen. One of the reasons that I like the film as much as I do is because, tonally, it feels very 'DS9-esque'... something that the other TNG movies don't)
Walt Disney's The Three Musketeers (This film was really my first exposure to the story of the Three Musketeers, and remains one of my two favorite on-screen depictions of the characters. Having subsequently read the novel, the characterizations were close enough to not be complete departures, but also 'fix' the novel's flaws, and I love Tim Curry's portrayal of Richelieu)
The Man in the Iron Mask (This is my other favorite on-screen depiction of the Three Musketeers, and one of the chief reasons I like the film so much is that it feels very much like a sequel to Walt Disney's Three Musketeers movie even though it clearly isn't and isn't meant to be. Leonardo DiCaprio's Louis XIV is certainly not as memorable a villain as Tim Curry's Richelieu, but his portrayal still works because of the fact that the story of TMitIM is much more personal in nature)
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (At World's End suffers from the 'three-quel syndrome' that had started to become a trend by the time it was released, but still manages to deliver a pretty fun experience that also fixes one of the biggest flaws with its predecessor Dead Man's Chest - the 'forcedness' of Elizabeth's obsession/fascination with Jack Sparrow - without outright discarding that plot point, and without, as is the case in DMC, ultimately demeaning her character)
Star Trek: Insurrection (I've come to find that ST: Insurrection tends to get a bad rap among the ST fandom, but I personally think it's a pretty good movie, and consider it to be my favorite of the films in the franchise that I've actually seen. One of the reasons that I like the film as much as I do is because, tonally, it feels very 'DS9-esque'... something that the other TNG movies don't)
Walt Disney's The Three Musketeers (This film was really my first exposure to the story of the Three Musketeers, and remains one of my two favorite on-screen depictions of the characters. Having subsequently read the novel, the characterizations were close enough to not be complete departures, but also 'fix' the novel's flaws, and I love Tim Curry's portrayal of Richelieu)
The Man in the Iron Mask (This is my other favorite on-screen depiction of the Three Musketeers, and one of the chief reasons I like the film so much is that it feels very much like a sequel to Walt Disney's Three Musketeers movie even though it clearly isn't and isn't meant to be. Leonardo DiCaprio's Louis XIV is certainly not as memorable a villain as Tim Curry's Richelieu, but his portrayal still works because of the fact that the story of TMitIM is much more personal in nature)
In the original Matrix movie, the Oracle, despite being coy, names Neo as the One. Neo is only saved from death at Cypher's hands when Tank (?) magically returns from the dead to back shoot Cypher. How did the Oracle know that Neo wouldn't perish in the "real" world? One obvious explanation is that Zion is part of the Matrix as well.
Matrix Revolutions opts for the interpretation that Zion and the "real" world is part of the system of control, so in that sense Revolutions doesn't reverse the original Matrix and Reloaded as well. The real world is part of the machine system, and the Oracle has access to information about it and can make predictions, as in the first movie. Neo can overwrite programs in the matrix and Neo can overwrite programs in the squids in the real world as well.
The question is whether the real world not being real at all is interesting. If the real world isn't real, then all that shooting is completely consequence free, so to me, the real world being another illusion isn't interesting. In fact, the sequels helped clear up what I considered to be a major flaw in the first movie, the probability that Zion was just another program.
Thinking about the Matrix movies reminds me that I forgot The Day the Earth Stood Still, in the superior modern version. There's another one I like that loads of people hate.
Matrix Revolutions opts for the interpretation that Zion and the "real" world is part of the system of control, so in that sense Revolutions doesn't reverse the original Matrix and Reloaded as well. The real world is part of the machine system, and the Oracle has access to information about it and can make predictions, as in the first movie. Neo can overwrite programs in the matrix and Neo can overwrite programs in the squids in the real world as well.
The question is whether the real world not being real at all is interesting. If the real world isn't real, then all that shooting is completely consequence free, so to me, the real world being another illusion isn't interesting. In fact, the sequels helped clear up what I considered to be a major flaw in the first movie, the probability that Zion was just another program.
Thinking about the Matrix movies reminds me that I forgot The Day the Earth Stood Still, in the superior modern version. There's another one I like that loads of people hate.
That's being generous.
The thing that made me want to fling the Waterworld video/dvd (I think it was video) out the window was when in the film they first enter that floating city and there is a depiction in one of the floating stalls of a sharks remains as though it were a bony fish and not a cartiligious fish. i.e there was this sharks jaws attached to a made-up skeleton complete with spine and ribcage. I mean, really! The cretins!
I gotta agree about Lara Croft: Tomb Raider. That's one of the most fun action movies ever made. It moves at a swift pace with some well acted characters, even if it's not going for anything deep. It's got a pre-Bond Daniel Craig faking a damn good American accent as Lara Croft's rival/lover Alex West. It's got a bouncy soundtrack that carries it through to the end. Bonus: Lara Croft's butler is Rimmer from Red Dwarf.
I was less enthused with Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life. It wasn't terrible. It just failed to capture the same energy that made the 1st one so lovable. I think some of that is length and a lot of it is a lack of an irresistable techno soundtrack.
I'm not a huge fan of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, but it has grown on me. It does a pretty good job of addressing the various plot threads left hanging from the last one, although I still think that killing off James Norrington & Governor Swan was unnecessary. It's also taken me a while to get used to the semi-tragic ending of the Will/Elizabeth romance.
Having not read the novel, what were the "flaws" that needed "fix"ing?
I was less enthused with Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life. It wasn't terrible. It just failed to capture the same energy that made the 1st one so lovable. I think some of that is length and a lot of it is a lack of an irresistable techno soundtrack.
I'm not a huge fan of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, but it has grown on me. It does a pretty good job of addressing the various plot threads left hanging from the last one, although I still think that killing off James Norrington & Governor Swan was unnecessary. It's also taken me a while to get used to the semi-tragic ending of the Will/Elizabeth romance.
Having not read the novel, what were the "flaws" that needed "fix"ing?
Can you give me the idiot's guide explanation?
It's hard to see the overt hate for this movie, it does drag in places, I believe you could remove as much as ten minutes and it would be a better film for it. Or replace the ten minutes (or twenty) with different material. I've had friends who weren't trek fans say that TMP needed narration, interesting idea.
See http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
http://objectmatrix.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!BA7DBC3966A6FA91!1870.entry or http://searchcio-midmarket.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid183_gci341428,00.html
Basically, imagine you have 2 particles. Say electrons, for arguments sake.
The 2 electrons form part of a system, like an atom. We know from observation of this particular type of system, that one electron spins one way, the other spins in the opposite direction.
The moment we observe one electron spinning clockwise (relative to our point of observation) we automatically know (without observation) that the other one moves counter-clockwise.
It doesn't matter how separated these two particles are, they can now be separated by light years, and they still share this relationship. The moment we observe one spinning clockwise, we instantly know the rotational state of the other one.
This sounds like mere common sense, until you apply that other nonsensical quantum law, the law of superposition which states that the particles actually have no rotation at all until we observe it. It's like Schrodinger's cat - it is both spinning both ways and not spinning at all in a kind of 'nether' state, until it is observed.
If that's true, then it's almost like there is some kind of instantaneous transmission or communication between the two particles, regardless of distance between them - though quantum phsyicists state there is no information shared in this way.
At this point, my head starts to hurt normally.
The novel is almost nothing like any of the myriad of filmic adaptations that have been made of/from it, and the characters are extremely one-dimensional; the characteristics and characterizations for the characters that are there in the novel are used only to distinguish one character from another and give the reader a reason - superficial though it might be - to care about the characters. Disney's Three Musketeers focuses the characterization(s) of the characters so that, while they are faithful to the novel, they don't feel like they're 'window dressing', as it were.
Great points and I liked all of these as well. A few others that I recently rewatched and many hated:
Sniper
Red Dawn
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
Blade II and III
chriskirkgeek
Ensign
2012
Star Trek XI
Avatar I don't care if some think it's Pochantas with special effects I love the Disney film as well
Indy 4 just amazing to see Harrison Ford back as Indy.
Star Trek XI
Avatar I don't care if some think it's Pochantas with special effects I love the Disney film as well
Indy 4 just amazing to see Harrison Ford back as Indy.
