|craptacular - 2009-09-12 |
if you enjoyed this, google Rob Ayer's Eyes Wide Shut Analysis.
|socialist_hentai - 2009-09-12 |
what about the sequels?
|Gojira1000 - 2009-09-12 |
Or, optionally, one can take early statements of the directors that they wanted to do a superhero movie and needed an excuse they liked for super powers at face value.
Deep social commentary or comic geek weirdos. Occam sez 2.
Deep analysis of any piece of "art" is masturbatory. It's the intellectual equivalent of combing through the Bible for prophecy and Bible code bullshit.
Why would anyone care what the wachoswskis "wanted" people to get out of their film?
Did people just stop caring about the intentional fallacy, or did they just stop teaching it?
When did the artist's intentions become the limits of a work of art?
As Herzog would say:
"Film is not analysis, it is the agitation of mind; cinema comes from the country fair and the circus, not from art and academicism."
"Cinema is an old whore, like circus and variety, who knows how to give many kinds of pleasure." - Fellini
It would seem there is room for the artful and the academic in cinema after all.
I'm in agreement with Futurebot, that said, there's obviously lots of stuff put in intentionally.
|roughnready66 - 2009-09-12 |
5 stars for Teh Internets Lawyer analysis at the beginning.
|Riskbreaker - 2009-09-12 |
Seems that a big part of the appeal of this movie to nerds and geeks is that it makes them feel smart. Is a big ego wanking exercise.
WAKE UP SHEEPLE! Open your eyes! Do the research! You're all asleep, living your mundane lives, unlike we who know the truth!
|memedumpster - 2009-09-12 |
Why do you need two clips to say "it sucked?"
Oh, I get it, community college ENG101 argument paper, wherein you learn to cherry pick absolutely anything to argue absolutely anything.
|Stog - 2009-09-12 |
FILM ANALYSIS OF THE MATRIX:
Lipstick on a pig.
|StanleyPain - 2009-09-12 |
I don't understand why people can't just enjoy the Matrix films as basic sci-fi action/adventure without all this bullshit. Yes, I realize that the Wachkowski's raided a ton of mythology, history, and philosophy books in order to create some of the story aspects, metaphors, and character names/orientations, but I think they just did that thinking it was "cool" rather than to lend any real, truly deep meaning to the film.
Maybe the Gnostic aspects were intentional on some level, but they're so shallow that analyzing them is just dumb mental masturbation.
why are you offended that some people seek further meaning from a film ? its their own lookout. you seem content remaining indifferent (or ignorant?) about the subject matter, and you're fine with it, and so is everyone else.
It was pretty hard to enjoy the sequels since they were entirely made out of this kind of masturbatory bullshit and we actually got a 10 minute scene of some French guy explaining to us that "causality makes stuff happen".
The first one sort of blew my mind because you didn't see any of this coming, the previews were very good about not giving away the game. But it got mired in self-important symbolism and portent and bullshit to the point that the already weak characterization just sort of died, by the second one it wasn't wanted any longer.
The first one is a great action movie with a pretty good story. The second is the tatters of a story with some truly great action scenes. The third is okay.
Oh and this is boring.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|