[itistoday]

EDIT: Please do not get insulted if you liked Revolutions. PLEASE read the ENTIRE thread before posting so you won't be redundant.

EDIT: Ok. I have thought long and hard about all of this, and here is what I've come up with: I understand where a lot of you are coming from. It's almost "racist" to consider all those who cannot put Reloaded/Revolutions under a similar movie, Terminator 2. A similar statement would be that all people who cannot judge art between two extremes are morons. This definitely seems very wrong, because it is simply discriminating against a group of people who don't seem to be worthy of that discrimination.

Then I see my point of view. That the ability to make a choice between 2 extremes and judge them not based on one criteria, but as a whole, reflects what your values are, and your personality.

To decide which one of these views I agree with, I'm forced to look at examples. I know a couple of people who think that Revolutions was better than T2. They aren't the best of people. One thinks that honking at cars whenever he thinks they're about to make a turn in front of him is good, so that it will make them stop and let him cut them off, saving him about 5 seconds. He also worships Che Gevada, a communist extremist in South America who was shot by CIA agents. The other complains about how he doesn't want to have to put his $800 bag on the floor because it will dirty the bag, yet he chooses to come to class with it every day. He also is the example I use when I say that some people think that Charlie's Angels is a better movie than "Gone with the Wind", or "Forest Gump". He also doesn't like the Simpsons but enjoys "reality" shows. Needless to say he's pretty arrogent and annoying.

Now I can't think of a single person who shares their POV and is overall a decent, fun person to hang out with. I do, however, have a very good friend of mine who liked Matrix: Revolutions. But he liked it for the special effects and because he wanted to see a crazy action movie. But he doesn't consider Revolutions better than T2.

But I agree that I should never call entire groups of people morons, because there can allways be that one who both totally disagrees with me, yet is a good person. So with that, I leave you with a slightly edited version, b/c it doesn't allow me to post such a long post.

-----------------------------

First, several premises:
1) too many characters to post.

2) For those of you could consider movie critics to be some sort of alien species who aren't "like us", get a reality check. These people are paid to review movies, and have seen many more films than you have, and therefore, have a larger library of films to COMPARE these two sequals to.

3) Did you knotice how I had the word "compare" capitalized? This is because it is a rather important word when it comes to critiquing films. Many of you have the audacity to call these films "great" and "amazing", when you don't even know how to properly rate movies. To rate a film you must have seen many films and have the mental capacity to compare them together, and draw conclusions. It is my firm belief that those of you who thought that these were "great" movies are not capable of this type of critical thinking.

Now that we have those laid out, on towards the mini-review!

The original Matrix film was quite different from its two sequels. In fact, it was on the other side of the spectrum. The Matrix created a unique mood, unlike that of any other movie that I've seen. It was an... unpleasant mood, dark and unwelcoming. The movie had most of the aspects a good film should have, such as a logical storyline, a well developed plot, threads that eventually connected to create a beautiful tale. In addition, The Matrix had a clean, fast pace that remained throughout the film, alternating smoothly and without harsh interruption. It did, however, fall short of 5 stars because of some poor acting, and average dialogue. However, it was a very entertaining, solid, 4 star film.

The same cannot be said for its two sequels. The Wachowski brothers got carried away with the seductive tantalization's of money. Before the duo had started out with a modest budget for a Hollywood film, this forced them to try and earn the audiences affections from an interesting angle known commonly as "plot". When they succeeded at this they were rewarded with millions and millions and decided to make the rest of the sequels from a different angle (why I do not know). This time they chose an interesting strategy that has been so effective, that even the US military is getting in on the action. It is called, ladies and gentlemen, "Shock and Awe". Yes, this is the same strategy normally utilized by bad directors to make quickly scrapped-together films directed at idiotic audiences. And because of the overwhelming number of idiots in this world, their scheme is working.

Reloaded and Revolutions were similar films. Both had horrible plots, horrible acting, and horrible dialogue. They did not fit with the flow and mood that was established by the first Matrix. While the first movie was fairly logical, these two defied all reasonable logic. And they were NOT entertaining because of it! Instead of the intrigue of the first film, we were bombarded with non-stop "action-packed" fighting scenes that while looked very "cool" were utterly pointless and the shear number of them quickly gave the audience "battle fatigue". The Wachowskis noticed that people really liked the fighting in the first film, and so they decided to go several times overboard and make the movie 75% fighting, and the rest illogical bull.

Both movies are akin to simple video games. You have certain characters such as "The Keymaker" and "The Architect" and a whole bunch of other useless, thrown-in characters that interrupt the style of the first film. These clich� characters assist our hero as he proceeds to fight several "bosses" to succeed to the next level. In Reloaded they have to get past the Merovingian's "ghosts" and random henchmen. Fighting these evil bad-guys takes the Hero about 30 minutes of film time. In Revolutions the Merovingian is again protected by mini-bosses who have the ability to walk on the ceiling!

Then we have one of the chief bosses Merovingian himself. Except guess what? He's not important or relevant whatsoever! He's... just there! He and the large breasted Persephone are two useless characters that are thrown into the sequels and cause a complete distortion of the original film's flow and mood. "Oh, but he's a program! That's his point!" I hear you cry. Do you really believe that to be a valid excuse for his existence? No. This idea of "random programs going bad" was really developed in the second and third films, and not the first. Sure we've got the program Oracle in the first film, but there really was no reason for the Wachowskis to introduce this "programs go bad" idea into the film because all it is really, is just an excuse to fill up running time with Shock and Awe�.

Equivalent to the unnecessary "Keymaker" in the second film, we have the "Train Man" in the third. Both useless characters that add to the crappy plot.

What we are left with are two films that lack all the gusto left over from the first, completely deplete the relevance of ALL characters (even Morpheus has been turned into this regular old "prophet" who doesn't have the impressive aura he had in the first).

The last two movies can be described in one word: clich�. And a lot of concepts are blatantly plagiarized, and not from very impressive sources. A quick example:

In Revolutions, the final showdown between Neo and Agent Smith was completely unsubstantiated, and stolen from a rather entertaining Japanese cartoon. I speak non other than of Dragon Ball Z. Yes, I'm serious. If you have seen this show, then you'll know what I'm talking about. First of all, since when did Smith learn to fly? He couldn't in the second movie (remember Neo running away from him in the totally pointless 1000 Smitth fight scene?), and nothing has changed with him since then. Oh well, I guess we're just supposed to 'accept it'. Throughout the lengthy scene, I was quietly expecting Neo to turn super-saiyan and blast Smith with a Kamehameha. We had the standard DBZ explosions in it, and the standard DBZ knock-down-from-5000-feet-in-the-air to create a huge crater in the ground.

Edit: What was the purpose of APU's? I think it must simply their desire for "more coolness". I think that entire battle scene in Zion was ridiculous because the fate of humanity ended up resting on the shoulders of this annoying boy who couldn't act. When he opened the gates the ship crashed in and destroyed thousands of sentinels with ONE EMP pulse! At this point the crowd at the IMAX starts clapping their hands enthusiastically, but I'm not really sure what for. Why didn't they do this from the start? Why couldn't they just get rid of all the APUs and line that entire area with EMPs if a single one can cause so much freakin' damage?

Reloaded, I'm sorry to say, was not a "stepping-stone" transitionary film. Rather it was a stone that happened to be two miles off from the path of all the other stones set forth by the original Matrix. And so was Revolutions.

[THE MAC GOD]

Do you really need to have everything that happens in a movie substantiated? Smith could FLY because he had aquired all of Neo's powers from the first film (Some part of you copied to me, vice versa). PLUS, he had unrelentless power. If you have a problem with the movie... that's fine. I, however, enjoyed it and would watch it again.

[itistoday]

Originally posted by THE MAC GOD:
Do you really need to have everything that happens in a movie substantiated? Smith could FLY because he had aquired all of Neo's powers from the first film (Some part of you copied to me, vice versa). PLUS, he had unrelentless power. If you have a problem with the movie... that's fine. I, however, enjoyed it and would watch it again.

It's OK. See, you haven't really rebuked anything I said, and all you've said is the simple plebeian response of "I liked it; you didn't".

That's great. You want a cookie? This post gives reasons WHY it sucked. I'm not asking to hear about how much you liked it, it's ok, I know you have no taste, you don't need to rub it in my face. Now if you had actually rebuked my points and proven to me why you liked it and what made it a good movie then there would be a point to your reply.

[benb]

Originally posted by itistoday:
It's OK. See, you haven't really rebuked anything I said, and all you've said is the simple plebeian response of "I liked it; you didn't".

That's great. You want a cookie? This post gives reasons WHY it sucked. I'm not asking to hear about how much you liked it, it's ok, I know you have no taste, you don't need to rub it in my face. Now if you had actually rebuked my points and proven to me why you liked it and what made it a good movie then there would be a point to your reply.

I'll rebuke you with this.

You are spending way too much time telling me why it sucked, and have put way too much time into your reasoning.

Know what? It is just a movie. You are no better than those who think it is the best thing since sliced bread.

[itistoday]

Originally posted by benb:
I'll rebuke you with this.

You are spending way too much time telling me why it sucked, and have put way too much time into your reasoning.

Know what? It is just a movie. You are no better than those who think it is the best thing since sliced bread.

Hehe... a bit flustered are we? I enjoy debating movies, it's a "fun" thing for me to do, seeing as I'd like to make them someday. So analyzing films is perfectly healthy for me. You, however, need to get a grip and make up your mind. Either quitely disagree and don't post, or post but say something relevant to the topic.

[PJW]

Y'know, you're being a real asshole about this, and I think you're going to turn more people away from your point of view than you think. You're treating the people who liked this movie as if they were idiots just because they hold a different opinion than you do. If you didn't like it, fine. But stop being a dick about it.

[benb]

Originally posted by itistoday:
Hehe... a bit flustered are we? I enjoy debating movies, it's a "fun" thing for me to do, seeing as I'd like to make them someday. So analyzing films is perfectly healthy for me. You, however, need to get a grip and make up your mind. Either quitely disagree and don't post, or post but say something relevant to the topic.

You want relevant? I have analyzed this and believe you are personally upset with Hollywood for in your mind 'destroying' something you really like.

Get over it. If you don't like it, fine. No one expects you to. They make it because they hope some people like it enough so that it makes enough money to cover the production costs and to pad thier wallets. And if it does that then the people who worked on the film will be pretty happy. They are not stressing over wether every fan of the first movie liked it. And to those that liked 1 and not 2 and 3, they could care less, unless it makes them lose money. That is the hard truth. So quit analyzing. It's not even real or important.

[CollinG3G4]

Jesus H! This is getting worse than those Mac vs PC debates.

[::maroma::]

Originally posted by itistoday:
Hehe... a bit flustered are we? I enjoy debating movies, it's a "fun" thing for me to do, seeing as I'd like to make them someday. So analyzing films is perfectly healthy for me. You, however, need to get a grip and make up your mind. Either quitely disagree and don't post, or post but say something relevant to the topic.

You enjoy debating movies? I wouldn't call what you are doing "debating". It's more like "I'm right, you're wrong. And if you don't agree with that, then I'll insult your intelligence, or I'll insult you directly."

Someone in here definitely needs to get a grip, and it isn't benb.

[itistoday]

Originally posted by benb:
You want relevant? I have analyzed this and believe you are personally upset with Hollywood for in your mind 'destroying' something you really like.

Get over it. If you don't like it, fine. No one expects you to. They make it because they hope some people like it enough so that it makes enough money to cover the production costs and to pad thier wallets. And if it does that then the people who worked on the film will be pretty happy. They are not stressing over wether every fan of the first movie liked it. And to those that liked 1 and not 2 and 3, they could care less, unless it makes them lose money. That is the hard truth. So quit analyzing. It's not even real or important.

I could care less about what they're stressing about. I'm simply giving my reasons on why it sucked. That's the hard truth. If I sound like I'm being a dick, oh well. I've considered that I might "sound like" I'm a dick, but I don't ****ing care.

Call me idealistic but I think that it's disterbing that I know a person who considers "Charlies Angels" to be a better movie than "Forest Gump" and "Gone with the Wind". I'm fighting that. I think that society would be a better place, where people would make better decisions, and interact with each other better. Believe it or not, opinions can obliterate entire societies, and have done so in our history. I think � call me crazy � that if everyone stopped considering "Charlies Angels" type movies to be better than "Forest Gump" type movies (i.e. 5 star movies), then we'd solve a lot of problems in society such as murder.

Far out eh? So I'm going to continue arguing this as much as I want. And I'm sorry that you don't see why it's so important, in addition to you thinking it was a good movie.

[rampant]

Originally posted by itistoday:
I'm not exactly sure why I bother... but I think it has something to do with me worrying about our generation... or something like that.

First, several premises:
1) If you are over the age of 30, and think thought that these two movies were great, then there's little hope for you. You've already outgrown your mental development stage, and most of your personality has been molded. In other words, you'll have horrible taste forever.

2) For those of you could consider movie critics to be some sort of alien species who aren't "like us", get a reality check. These people are paid to review movies, and have seen many more films than you have, and therefore, have a larger library of films to COMPARE these two sequals to.

3) Did you knotice how I had the word "compare" capitalized? This is because it is a rather important word when it comes to critiquing films. Many of you have the audacity to call these films "great" and "amazing", when you don't even know how to properly rate movies. To rate a film you must have seen many films and have the mental capacity to compare them together, and draw conclusions. It is my firm belief that those of you who thought that these were "great" movies are not capable of this type of critical thinking.

Now that we have those laid out, on towards the mini-review!

The original Matrix film was quite different from its two sequels. In fact, it was on the other side of the spectrum. The Matrix created a unique mood, unlike that of any other movie that I've seen. It was an... unpleasant mood, dark and unwelcoming. The movie had most of the aspects a good film should have, such as a logical storyline, a well developed plot, threads that eventually connected to create a beautiful tale. In addition, The Matrix had a clean, fast pace that remained throughout the film, alternating smoothly and without harsh interruption. It did, however, fall short of 5 stars because of some poor acting, and average dialogue. However, it was a very entertaining, solid, 4 star film.

The same cannot be said for its two sequels. The Wachowski brothers got carried away with the seductive tantalization's of money. Before the duo had started out with a modest budget for a Hollywood film, this forced them to try and earn the audiences affections from an interesting angle known commonly as "plot". When they succeeded at this they were rewarded with millions and millions and decided to make the rest of the sequels from a different angle (why I do not know). This time they chose an interesting strategy that has been so effective, that even the US military is getting in on the action. It is called, ladies and gentlemen, "Shock and Awe". Yes, this is the same strategy normally utilized by bad directors to make quickly scrapped-together films directed at idiotic audiences. And because of the overwhelming number of idiots in this world, their scheme is working.

Reloaded and Revolutions were similar films. Both had horrible plots, horrible acting, and horrible dialogue. They did not fit with the flow and mood that was established by the first Matrix. While the first movie was fairly logical, these two defied all reasonable logic. And they were NOT entertaining because of it! Instead of the intrigue of the first film, we were bombarded with non-stop "action-packed" fighting scenes that while looked very "cool" were utterly pointless and the shear number of them quickly gave the audience "battle fatigue". The Wachowskis noticed that people really liked the fighting in the first film, and so they decided to go several times overboard and make the movie 75% fighting, and the rest illogical bull.

Both movies are akin to simple video games. You have certain characters such as "The Keymaker" and "The Architect" and a whole bunch of other useless, thrown-in characters that interrupt the style of the first film. These clich� characters assist our hero as he proceeds to fight several "bosses" to succeed to the next level. In Reloaded they have to get past the Merovingian's "ghosts" and random henchmen. Fighting these evil bad-guys takes the Hero about 30 minutes of film time. In Revolutions the Merovingian is again protected by mini-bosses who have the ability to walk on the ceiling! Oh my God someone please stop my from orgasming at how COOL and ORIGINAL these guys are! Bam, 10 minutes gone down the drain in that scene.

Then we have one of the chief bosses Merovingian himself. Except guess what? He's not important or relevant whatsoever! He's... just there! He and the large breasted Persephone are two useless characters that are thrown into the sequels and cause a complete distortion of the original film's flow and mood. "Oh, but he's a program! That's his point!" I hear you cry. Do you really believe that to be a valid excuse for his existence? No. This idea of "random programs going bad" was really developed in the second and third films, and not the first. Sure we've got the program Oracle in the first film, but there really was no reason for the Wachowskis to introduce this "programs go bad" idea into the film because all it is really, is just an excuse to fill up running time with Shock and Awe�.

Equivalent to the unnecessary "Keymaker" in the second film, we have the "Train Man" in the third. Both useless characters that add to the crappy plot.

What we are left with are two films that lack all the gusto left over from the first, completely deplete the relevance of ALL characters (even Morpheus has been turned into this regular old "prophet" who doesn't have the impressive aura he had in the first).

And as I'm sure you're very tired of reading this long post, I'll try to wind this "mini-review" down to a few last points.

The last two movies can be described in one word: clich�. Every aspect of the incarnations is clich�, and a lot of concepts are blatantly plagiarized, and not from very impressive sources. A quick example:

In Revolutions, the final showdown between Neo and Agent Smith was completely unsubstantiated, and stolen from a rather entertaining Japanese cartoon. I speak non other than of Dragon Ball Z. Yes, I'm serious. If you have seen this show, then you'll know what I'm talking about. First of all, since when did Smith learn to fly? He couldn't in the second movie (remember Neo running away from him in the totally pointless 1000 Smitth fight scene?), and nothing has changed with him since then. Oh well, I guess we're just supposed to 'accept it'. Throughout the lengthy scene, I was quietly expecting Neo to turn super-saiyan and blast Smith with a Kamehameha. We had the standard DBZ explosions in it, and the standard DBZ knock-down-from-5000-feet-in-the-air to create a huge crater in the ground.

Oh, and one final thing. How exactly can Neo use his "powers" in the real world? I believe it was the Oracle that gave us the bullshit excuse that it's simply because "he is the One". I think she meant to say "He is the new Messiah sent by God and given super-powers simply because". At least in the idea that he can do whatever he wants in the Matrix makes sense (as laid down by the first movie), but there is absolutely no reason for him to posses this power in the real world, it is simply put there to make the movie "more cool".

Revolutions, I'm sorry to say, was not a "stepping-stone" transitionary film. Rather it was a stone that happened to be two miles off from the path of all the other stones set forth by the original Matrix. And so was Revolutions.

And if you still think that these two films were worthy of standing on the pedestal of fame next to such giants as Terminator 2, then I suggest that you seriously seek medical attention right away... or shoot yourself.

Nobody ****ing cares, go outside.

[itistoday]

Originally posted by ::maroma:::
You enjoy debating movies? I wouldn't call what you are doing "debating". It's more like "I'm right, you're wrong. And if you don't agree with that, then I'll insult your intelligence, or I'll insult you directly."

Someone in here definitely needs to get a grip, and it isn't benb.

That's all fun and games, but you all are still avoiding the topic. It is a debate, and so far no one has actually countered my points. I'm saying that I'm right, but instead of bitching about it, maroma, why don't you give me reasons why my points are wrong?

[petehammer]

Originally posted by itistoday:
I think � call me crazy � that if everyone stopped considering "Charlies Angels" type movies to be better than "Forest Gump" type movies (i.e. 5 star movies), then we'd solve a lot of problems in society such as murder.

Why Forrest Gump Sucked

I'm not exactly sure why I bother... but I think it has something to do with me worrying about our generation... or something like that.

First, several premises:
1) If you are over the age of 30, and think that this movies is great, then there's little hope for you. You've already outgrown your mental development stage, and most of your personality has been molded. In other words, you'll have horrible taste forever.


Do you see the problem now?

BTW, I didn't like Matrix: Reloaded OR Forrest Gump. So, perhaps people can have different opinions from yours?

Your points on the Matrix are valid, but your phrasing is confrontational.

[::maroma::]

Originally posted by itistoday:
That's all fun and games, but you all are still avoiding the topic. It is a debate, and so far no one has actually countered my points. I'm saying that I'm right, but instead of bitching about it, maroma, why don't you give me reasons why my points are wrong?

Did I say I disagreed with your opinion of the films? No. So stop being so damn defensive and lighten up. I think you are forgetting the definitions of "opinion" and "debate". One does not debate differing opinions by insulting the other person.

The reason why no one is engaging you in an intelligent debate is because you are so quick to insult. If you're aspiring to be a film critic, you are going to have to learn how to truly debate a topic. Not beat the other person's opinion into submission with insults.

[itistoday]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Why Forrest Gump Sucked

I'm not exactly sure why I bother... but I think it has something to do with me worrying about our generation... or something like that.

First, several premises:
1) If you are over the age of 30, and think that this movies is great, then there's little hope for you. You've already outgrown your mental development stage, and most of your personality has been molded. In other words, you'll have horrible taste forever.


Do you see the problem now?

BTW, I didn't like Matrix: Reloaded OR Forrest Gump. So, perhaps people can have different opinions from yours?

Your points on the Matrix are valid, but your phrasing is confrontational.

It is confrontational. I just feel strongly about it for reasons previously posted. But, does that matter? The point still stands. I have to be confrontational, because I am specifically going directly against certain peoples beliefs, and I am calling their opinions wrong. It is a very dickish thing to do, but I'm backing up my words. You have a different viewpoint, I'm not insulting you. You said you didn't like Reloaded; that's good. You said you didn't like Forest Gump; that's weird, but I can deal with it. I'm speaking to those who consider these two movies (Reloaded and Revolutions), "Great." And yes, I'm doing it in a very confrontational way, purposefully, so that there is not tip-toeing around the subject, and there is no sugar-coating responses.

[itistoday]

Originally posted by ::maroma:::
Did I say I disagreed with your opinion of the films? No. So stop being so damn defensive and lighten up. I think you are forgetting the definitions of "opinion" and "debate". One does not debate differing opinions by insulting the other person.

The reason why no one is engaging you in an intelligent debate is because you are so quick to insult. If you're aspiring to be a film critic, you are going to have to learn how to truly debate a topic. Not beat the other person's opinion into submission with insults.

Hmm... I understood this point when I wrote that, as I've said, I've debated this topic before. But I am backing up my points with reasons, as you can see from the lengthy review. And one of my main points is insulting in its very nature: I am questioning peoples intelect based on their opinions.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by itistoday:
It is confrontational. I just feel strongly about it for reasons previously posted. But, does that matter? The point still stands. I have to be confrontational, because I am specifically going directly against certain peoples beliefs, and I am calling their opinions wrong. It is a very dickish thing to do, but I'm backing up my words. You have a different viewpoint, I'm not insulting you. You said you didn't like Reloaded; that's good. You said you didn't like Forest Gump; that's weird, but I can deal with it. I'm speaking to those who consider these two movies (Reloaded and Revolutions), "Great." And yes, I'm doing it in a very confrontational way, purposefully, so that there is not tip-toeing around the subject, and there is no sugar-coating responses.

But here's the thing... I thought Forrest Gump was simplistic and sugary, it reduced history to fluff. Was it a terrible movie? No. But for me it was by no means a 5-star film (3... TOPS). Do I think less of you because you liked it? No. Because I'm not the end all authority on films.

I agree with you about Reloaded. I think there are movies so terrible it is curious why people like them. At the same time, you will never convince these people that the movies suck, just like I cannot convince you why Forrest Gump was not a 5-star film.

I would say "let it go."

[OwlBoy]

Hmm, I would not say that Revolutions ripped off DBZ, it was inspired by it, it took it to the next level and made it "live action" (and did so very very well IMHO)

They have always said that The Matrix was inspired by anime. And it was made because they wanted to create a live-action movie with anime style.

-Owl

(oh, and DBZ sux )

[itistoday]

Originally posted by petehammer:
But here's the thing... I thought Forrest Gump was simplistic and sugary, it reduced history to fluff. Was it a terrible movie? No. But for me it was by no means a 5-star film (3... TOPS). Do I think less of you because you liked it? No. Because I'm not the end all authority on films.

I agree with you about Reloaded. I think there are movies so terrible it is curious why people like them. At the same time, you will never convince these people that the movies suck, just like I cannot convince you why Forrest Gump was not a 5-star film.

I would say "let it go."

Though I definitely see your point of view, I'd like you to understand that I am not trying to be the "end authority" on all films. I'm trying to be the "end authority" on specific, garbage films. It is a psychological argument that I am making. My heated and insulting talk is a result of a belief of mine that states that peoples personalities are molded by the things they like and do not like. Rather, that you can judge a person by what they like and don't like, but only in the extremes will you be accurate. There are some movies that I could rate 3 stars one day, and then listen to someones critique of it and give it a 5 the next day. But there are films that are just so bad, that I will not budge, and will think less of you for liking it. It is a simple and universal concept, and it is the same reason that wars are fought, that there are debates over abortion and cloning, I am simply skewing it towards personal preference of movies.

An example: You just saw a horrible turkey-rated film about a guy raping women, torturing people, and stating that the world is flat. It was filmed poorly, had bad acting, and had a horrible dialouge. When the crowd leaves the movie all around you people are cheering and telling TV stations how much they liked the film and thought that it was "Great!" and how much better it was than Chocolat and "other crappy movies" like A Beautiful Mind and A Beautiful Life. Perhaps you might think that this was ok, but I would think that there was something seriously wrong with these people, and would be scared to accept a ride from them.

This is why I so heatedly debate this issue. If you can't understand where I'm coming from, oh well.

[itistoday]

Originally posted by OwlBoy:
Hmm, I would not say that Revolutions ripped off DBZ, it was inspired by it, it took it to the next level and made it "live action" (and did so very very well IMHO)

They have always said that The Matrix was inspired by anime. And it was made because they wanted to create a live-action movie with anime style.

-Owl

(oh, and DBZ sux )

Thank you Owl for your post. You are the first person to reply to the actual topic at hand.

Hmmm... "ripped off", "inspired by". I think these are all relative terms and depend on what point of view you look at it from. My point on that one was that it was unoriginal and that it resorted to copying a childrens cartoon into a film that was *supposed* to be much more serious. (I'm always relating back to the first Matrix btw, which was great and original and didn't really rip/use much from anything else.)

[shmerek]

Originally posted by itistoday:
I'm trying to be the "end authority" on specific, garbage films.

Give it up because you are not. Let me ask you this was KIll Bill a good movie?

[itistoday]

Originally posted by shmerek:
Give it up because you are not. Let me ask you this was KIll Bill a good movie?

Sorry, I haven't seen Kill Bill.

[::maroma::]

Originally posted by itistoday:
And one of my main points is insulting in its very nature: I am questioning peoples intelect based on their opinions.

But you aren't questioning anything. You are stating infatically that whoever disagrees with you is of inferior intellect. And how exactly does one's opinion of a piece of entertainment/art equate to the level of their intellect?

[thunderous_funker]

Its all find and dandy to have a strong opinion. Its even dandier to be able to back up your opinion based on logic, reason, or observable data. But no matter how you slice it, "opinions" aren't really debatable in terms of "right" and "wrong" opinions. I dare say, even "good" and "bad" opinions are entirely subjective.

Already we have an example to illustrate the problem: fight scene being borrowed from DMZ.

One persons considers that negative and unoriginal. The other finds it an inspired homage and extension of the original.

Which is the "right" answer? When you think you have that answer, please provide the answers to the following:

1) Why is blue?
2) When is right?
3) Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?

(with apologies to Joseph Heller)

So again. Challenging people to defend their opinions is fine. But declaring one opinion superior or inferior is essentially nothing but narcissistic solipsism.

You don't like it because it was less thought-provoking and more mindless action--whereas those might be the exact reason that someone else adored the movie. They don't attend Keanu Reeves movies in a vain hope of bettering themselves.

Not everyone looks to art for redemption. Especially not pop art. And people who do look for redemption at the movies aren't better people than those who don't, only more commonly dissappointed.

[itistoday]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Its all find and dandy to have a strong opinion. Its even dandier to be able to back up your opinion based on logic, reason, or observable data. But no matter how you slice it, "opinions" aren't really debatable in terms of "right" and "wrong" opinions. I dare say, even "good" and "bad" opinions are entirely subjective.

Already we have an example to illustrate the problem: fight scene being borrowed from DMZ.

One persons considers that negative and unoriginal. The other finds it an inspired homage and extension of the original.

Which is the "right" answer? When you think you have that answer, please provide the answers to the following:

1) Why is blue?
2) When is right?
3) Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?

(with apologies to Joseph Heller)

So again. Challenging people to defend their opinions is fine. But declaring one opinion superior or inferior is essentially nothing but narcissistic solipsism.

You don't like it because it was less thought-provoking and more mindless action--whereas those might be the exact reason that someone else adored the movie. They don't attend Keanu Reeves movies in a vain hope of bettering themselves.

Not everyone looks to art for redemption. Especially not pop art. And people who do look for redemption at the movies aren't better people than those who don't, only more commonly dissappointed.

All very true statements. It is a philosophical argument that has always intrigued me. I am not arguing against the definitive meaning of an "opinion" � I understand perfectly well that an opinion, by definition, cannot be wrong. That settled, I can only be arguing its connotative meaning, right? I've stated numerous examples of how an "opinion" can be wrong. I use the term opinion for lack of a better word.

Edit, just in case you missed this:

An example: You just saw a horrible turkey-rated film about a guy raping women, torturing people, and stating that the world is flat. It was filmed poorly, had bad acting, and had a horrible dialouge. When the crowd leaves the movie all around you people are cheering and telling TV stations how much they liked the film and thought that it was "Great!" and how much better it was than Chocolat and "other crappy movies" like A Beautiful Mind and A Beautiful Life. Perhaps you might think that this was ok, but I would think that there was something seriously wrong with these people, and would be scared to accept a ride from them.

What you said about narcissistic solipsism is interesting, and is a serious argument against everything I've said because I personally disagree with solipsism. But, just as certain laws of physics don't apply at extreme temperatures and conditions, I don't think solipsism applies when I state that someone is wrong for liking something that's very bad.

With your conservative and omniscient view of "opinion" one could justify Hitler's "opinions" of the Aryan race. I'm not saying that I'm superior to someone, I'm simply saying that they are wrong in thinking that Charlie's Angels was better than some great work. And again, I'm using the word "opinion" because it describes best what I'm talking about. I believe we were all taught in grade school the difference between opinion and fact, so when I make such a claim I expect that everyone knows that I'm not arguing the definition of opinion, but its connotation.

And though it isn't my opinion that such a viewpoint is narcissistic solipsism, it might very well be yours, but guess what? I think that both of those opinions could be argued as pretty close with a thin line separating them, but the line is much thicker between Some Like it Hot and Austin Powers.

With that said, I do believe that you said that challenging them to defend their opinions is fine, and that's exactly what I'm doing. If someone can convince me that Revolutions was indeed a "Great" film, then I will retract every statement I have made tonight and apologize whole-heartedly for calling them morons.

But you cannot convince me by not replying to the topic at hand, that part I think is obvious.

[PJW]

Originally posted by itistoday:

With that said, I do believe that you said that challenging them to defend their opinions is fine, and that's exactly what I'm doing. If someone can convince me that Revolutions was indeed a "Great" film, then I will retract every statement I have made tonight and apologize whole-heartedly for calling them morons.

But don't you see the problem here? You want someone to reply to defend their reasoning as to why they enjoyed the movie, yet you say that if someone thinks that Revolutions was good, they have terrible taste in movies and should "seriously seek medical attention right away... or shoot [themselves]."

If that's your opinion of someone who liked Revolutions, then of course no one is going to want to defend the movie to you, because you have already established yourself as being hostile and confrontational towards them. People generally don't like being told they should kill themselves because they're stupid. Maybe if you had come in acting like a decent person the situation would be different. Saying something like, "I thought there were several things wrong with this movie. Does anyone agree or disagree?" would work so much better than your vicious remarks.

To sum it all up, people aren't responding to your points because you're acting like an asshat. If you act like an asshat, you will be treated as such.

[itistoday]

Originally posted by PJW:
But don't you see the problem here? You want someone to reply to defend their reasoning as to why they enjoyed the movie, yet you say that if someone thinks that Revolutions was good, they have terrible taste in movies and should "seriously seek medical attention right away... or shoot [themselves]."

If that's your opinion of someone who liked Revolutions, then of course no one is going to want to defend the movie to you, because you have already established yourself as being hostile and confrontational towards them. People generally don't like being told they should kill themselves because they're stupid. Maybe if you had come in acting like a decent person the situation would be different. Saying something like, "I thought there were several things wrong with this movie. Does anyone agree or disagree?" would work so much better than your vicious remarks.

To sum it all up, people aren't responding to your points because you're acting like an asshat. If you act like an asshat, you will be treated as such.

I said that in a mix of sarcasm, but mainly because I wanted to say exactly what I was thinking. Out of principle, or something. Um... perhaps you're right, perhaps you're wrong, but you can't speak for everyone. In that post you've quoted I said that if they could convince me their point of view, then I would retract everything I said and apologize. But I really do think that they are morons man... I'm sorry but I do, and I think it should be said. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

It's the same reason that schools encourage kids to read "books of merit", and not "Animorphs" or "Goosebumps".

[shmerek]

I think this twit is pulling our legs, he cannot be that egotistical... can he?

[Xerox Man]

Personally, I don't mind Itistoday's vicious remarks about the movie. He's probably the kind of guy who would wake up at 4 am to wait in line to see Steve Jobs. There is something to be said for being passionate about your cause. If for whatever reason he really cares so deeply about why the new Matrix movies sucked, so be it. All I have to say is that the movie was good, not great and is certainly worthwhile to see on IMAX, which is where I saw it. I don't need to go point by point to say why I liked it. Lots of pretty colors and something like 12000 watt surrond sound did it for me. He brings up interesting points, but sometimes people just like movies, and being part of the Q continuinum (STTNG) and having total control over space, time and matter and the knowledge of the universe along with an IQ of 2005; arguing anything would be without reason. Causility. I like the movie on IMAX, I claim it to be worth what I paid. ~JM

Originally posted by PJW:
But don't you see the problem here? You want someone to reply to defend their reasoning as to why they enjoyed the movie, yet you say that if someone thinks that Revolutions was good, they have terrible taste in movies and should "seriously seek medical attention right away... or shoot [themselves]."

If that's your opinion of someone who liked Revolutions, then of course no one is going to want to defend the movie to you, because you have already established yourself as being hostile and confrontational towards them. People generally don't like being told they should kill themselves because they're stupid. Maybe if you had come in acting like a decent person the situation would be different. Saying something like, "I thought there were several things wrong with this movie. Does anyone agree or disagree?" would work so much better than your vicious remarks.

To sum it all up, people aren't responding to your points because you're acting like an asshat. If you act like an asshat, you will be treated as such.

[itistoday]

Originally posted by Xerox Man:
Personally, I don't mind Itistoday's vicious remarks about the movie. He's probably the kind of guy who would wake up at 4 am to wait in line to see Steve Jobs. There is something to be said for being passionate about your cause. If for whatever reason he really cares so deeply about why the new Matrix movies sucked, so be it. All I have to say is that the movie was good, not great and is certainly worthwhile to see on IMAX, which is where I saw it. I don't need to go point by point to say why I liked it. Lots of pretty colors and something like 12000 watt surrond sound did it for me. He brings up interesting points, but sometimes people just like movies, and being part of the Q continuinum (STTNG) and having total control over space, time and matter and the knowledge of the universe along with an IQ of 2005; arguing anything would be without reason. Causility. I like the movie on IMAX, I claim it to be worth what I paid. ~JM

[PJW]

Originally posted by itistoday:
I said that in a mix of sarcasm, but mainly because I wanted to say exactly what I was thinking. Out of principle, or something. Um... perhaps you're right, perhaps you're wrong, but you can't speak for everyone.

I guess I can't, but I'm pretty certain that if you went up to someone on the street and said, "If you liked Revolutions, you should shoot yourself.", they would take offense and would probably get the hell away from you as fast as they could.

As for the sarcasm, that doesn't come across very easily through text unless you put up **SARCASM** notices. It's just one of those rules of the Internet.

In that post you've quoted I said that if they could convince me their point of view, then I would retract everything I said and apologize. But I really do think that they are morons man... I'm sorry but I do, and I think it should be said. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

If that's the way you feel, fine. But don't expect anyone to just accept that, because most people will be offended by it and not want to talk to you about it.

[Xerox Man]

You've driven me to enable the remove smilies in my options menu. Thanks.

Originally posted by itistoday:

[shmerek]

If you want to see some truly crappy movies click the dude's web link. My opinion on the matter is absolute if you disagree with me then you are a moron. End. Of. Discussion.

[itistoday]

Originally posted by shmerek:
If you want to see some truly crappy movies click the dude's web link. My opinion on the matter is absolute if you disagree with me then you are a moron. End. Of. Discussion.

I don't think you've said a single intelligent thing all day.

[itistoday]

Originally posted by PJW:
If that's the way you feel, fine. But don't expect anyone to just accept that, because most people will be offended by it and not want to talk to you about it.

So you're saying that I've ****ed this thread from the start by saying I thought that they were morons... Perhaps you're right. I did not expect that. Well, if you must know I felt obligated to say it becasue it was boiling up in me all day and I wanted to vent...

I need to learn that you can't just go around calling people morons, even if they are. My reasoning was that perhaps by putting up such provocative stuff up I'd get some interesting responses from them and provoke more of them to respond.

edit: Well, I've always wanted to try something like this and see what would happen. I'm really surprised that no one wants to debate in favor of the film. Probably cause I called 'em morons... yup... Oh well, lesson learned, at least now I know.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by itistoday:
I don't think you've said a single intelligent thing all day.

Well you are WRONG! Only my opinion if valid therefore if you disagree you are obviously unintelligent.

[itistoday]

An apology.

[Ozmodiar]

I thought it was clear that Smith became all-powerful because he had assimilated every program in the Matrix. When the Oracle became a Smith it was all over for the Matrix, as she is arguably the most powerful program written.

For what it's worth, I liked it.

[Eriamjh]

An opinion is an opinion. Taste is taste.

Some people are entertained by violence and special effects. Others critique every little detail and choose to dislike a movie because the acting was "wooden" or flat or the dialog corny. You seem to be going out of your way to convince others that there is nothing to be enjoyed by anyone in these movies and no one should like them. You even start with "Why do I bother?" Why did you?

What's next, a "Why PCs are better than Macs" post?

[designbc]

You want to talk about premises?

Here is my premise:
1) If you are over the age of 30, and think thought that you are superior because of your taste in movies, then there's little hope for you. You've already outgrown your mental development stage, and most of your personality has been molded. In other words, you'll be a stupid idiot forever.

And that comes, little a$$hole from somebody with an artistic education. Someone who has seen many good movies from all around the world. Someone who even likes non "conventional" movies, someone who can talk about Kurosawa and Almodovar.
But your stupid ego is so blind that you can't see the fact that some people live with so much stress and so many problems that they only need "a ride", "a show", "an escape", a little bit of "Charlie's Angels", not "A Beautiful Mind" (which I consider a good movie with an even better performance).
I also like good music, but if I go to a club, I won't dance with Beethoven's. I'll dance with wahtever crap they play in there. Why? Because I'm there TO HAVE FUN.

Enough said, go shoot yourself. But first, go shoot your stupid ego.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by itistoday:
With that said, I do believe that you said that challenging them to defend their opinions is fine, and that's exactly what I'm doing. If someone can convince me that Revolutions was indeed a "Great" film, then I will retract every statement I have made tonight and apologize whole-heartedly for calling them morons.

But you cannot convince me by not replying to the topic at hand, that part I think is obvious.

"convince you"???

Ok. But first I'm going to "convince" you that Thai food is your favorite and that blue is inherently superior to green.

The point you're missing was in the bottom of my post to you:

Not everyone looks to art for redemption. Especially not pop art. And people who do look for redemption at the movies aren't better people than those who don't, only more commonly dissappointed.

You are obviously watching movies for a completely different reason than many other people.

The total turkey movie about guns, rapes, and torture is a great movie if you went into the theater hoping to see some guns, rapes and torture. They're not looking for the redemptive quality in the film that you apparently seem to be looking for.

So this isn't about good and bad opinions. Its not even about good and bad taste. This is about the purpose of art in general, and the purpose of film specifically.

You're welcome to turn your nose at people who don't share your sense of aesthetic, but imaging that there is some scientific or objective justification for your snobbery is self-delusion.

But if you really want to be convinced to like Revolutions, how about this? If you don't say you loved it, I'll break your legs. How's that? My superior physical strength and brutal temper surely indicate I'm much much better than you so it would be wise for you to change your attitudes to suit my desires or suffer needless pain and limping.

"All humans are vermin in the eyes of Morbo!" -- Morbo

[itistoday]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
"convince you"???

Ok. But first I'm going to "convince" you that Thai food is your favorite and that blue is inherently superior to green.

The point you're missing was in the bottom of my post to you:


You are obviously watching movies for a completely different reason than many other people.

The total turkey movie about guns, rapes, and torture is a great movie if you went into the theater hoping to see some guns, rapes and torture. They're not looking for the redemptive quality in the film that you apparently seem to be looking for.

So this isn't about good and bad opinions. Its not even about good and bad taste. This is about the purpose of art in general, and the purpose of film specifically.

You're welcome to turn your nose at people who don't share your sense of aesthetic, but imaging that there is some scientific or objective justification for your snobbery is self-delusion.

But if you really want to be convinced to like Revolutions, how about this? If you don't say you loved it, I'll break your legs. How's that? My superior physical strength and brutal temper surely indicate I'm much much better than you so it would be wise for you to change your attitudes to suit my desires or suffer needless pain and limping.

"All humans are vermin in the eyes of Morbo!" -- Morbo

The following is also in reply to designbc's comments

You can watch Charlie's Angels. You can go and see "The Fast and the Furious". I am not denying anyone this. You can even go see it to be entertained. I never said that people can't go see these movies. Yet you are all interpretting it this way.

For those of you who think that I'm some sort of stuck-up prick with my nose high in the air listening to Bach on my $10,000 stereo system: you're wrong. I enjoy listening to rap music. I enjoy listening to techno music, rock music, classical music, game music, and music from almost every genre there is. I also really liked Legally Blonde. I was extremely entertained by The Emperor's New Groove.

Were you expecting that? Probably not. Then what is my beef? Well, I clearly outlined it in my posts, you all just twisted it around. What I said, was that there is something universally wrong with saying that The Fast and the Furious was a GREAT movie, better than afore mentioned 5-star films.

That is my point. So I would appreciate it if you all would stop distorting who I am, and argue against that specific point. And yes. I am fully aware that they are allowed to have that opinion. But, as I've ****ing said before, these people lower the quality of our society, because they feel that such movies are great, and therefore reflect � through their opinions � their individual morals. And no one likes an individual who doesn't have morals.

That is my point. Please try and understand it. I, however, have got to listen to this crazy Ludacris track that's playing right now.

Peace out y'all.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by itistoday:
But, as I've ****ing said before, these people lower the quality of our society, because they feel that such movies are great, and therefore reflect � through their opinions � their individual morals. And no one likes an individual who doesn't have morals.

WTF does one's taste in movies have to do with morals?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by itistoday:
[... What I said, was that there is something universally wrong with saying that The Fast and the Furious was a GREAT movie, better than afore mentioned 5-star films.

That is my point. So I would appreciate it if you all would stop distorting who I am, and argue against that specific point. And yes. I am fully aware that they are allowed to have that opinion. But, as I've ****ing said before, these people lower the quality of our society, because they feel that such movies are great, and therefore reflect � through their opinions � their individual morals. And no one likes an individual who doesn't have morals.

Now you're all over the place.

First you say that people with what you consider to be bad taste shouldn't continue to live.

Now you say there is something "universally wrong" with people who have what you consider to be bad taste.

And Finally, now you're equating people who have what you consider to be bad taste with people who don't have morals.

At first I thought you were just being elitist. Now I'm beginning to wonder if you have any idea at all what you're talking about.

Questions for you:

1) Please define "good taste"
2) Please demonstrate that the above definition is "universal"
3) Please explain what taste in art and morals have to do with one another

[shmerek]

LOL this thread is awesome!

[itistoday]

Originally posted by shmerek:
WTF does one's taste in movies have to do with morals?

Shmerek. I just told you, it's NOT taste in movies. It's the ability to say which is better than which. I can see why you're confused, seeing as they do seem similar at first glance, but there is an important difference. For example, the example i used in that post: "legally blonde". Legally Blonde falls into "my taste" for films, but I would rank it lower than say Some Like it Hot. But that's a bad example, because I wouldn't consider someone a moron if they ranked it higher than Some like it hot. I would, however, consider them dumb if they ranked Austin Powers to be "better" than Some Like it Hot.

What does this has to do with morals? Good question. Your reaction to a movie shows your agreement, or disagreement with the movies message. If the movies message is a dumb message, or at least MUCH worse than some 5 star film, then it reflects back to your inability to judge life in general. "The Message" of a film is everything in it. Not just its theme, but HOW it was done. Every aspect a critic looks at in a movie, not just special effects, etc.

Back to some previous arguements: If you went to see Revolutions in hopes of seeing cool special effects, then I'm sure you would have enjoyed it, because it had the best I've seen. But if you walk out of that theater, and tell me that what you just saw, as a whole, was better than the great action film T2, then I will think less of you.

This is because when you judge a movie on the whole, you are judging it as if you were judging a person. If you came up to someone and told them that you really liked Hitler, then they would think less of you. All the time, in all of my arguements in this thread, this is the kind of "judging" that I'm refering to. It is a the kind of "judging" that a film critic makes.

So what's the moral of the story? That if you liked Revolutions for one reason or another, than you are not an idiot. But if you say that as a whole, this film was better than Indiana Jones, then I will think less of you.

[itistoday]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Now you're all over the place.

First you say that people with what you consider to be bad taste shouldn't continue to live.

Now you say there is something "universally wrong" with people who have what you consider to be bad taste.

And Finally, now you're equating people who have what you consider to be bad taste with people who don't have morals.

At first I thought you were just being elitist. Now I'm beginning to wonder if you have any idea at all what you're talking about.

Questions for you:

1) Please define "good taste"
2) Please demonstrate that the above definition is "universal"
3) Please explain what taste in art and morals have to do with one another

Please consider my above reply to shmerek as part of this answer.

1) Good taste -
I'm assuming you are mixing this up with comparing movies... but I'll define good taste for you. Keep in mind that what I'm bitching about is the ability to compare films for their overall quality in all aspects such as script, plot, acting, cinematography, etc. However, here goes:

Good taste is a subjective thing. It means that you have good taste. Taste is personal preference in something. If you have good taste, then it can mean that the majority of people agree with what you like. It is not what I'm talking about, or what I mean (as shown in the Classical vs Rap example).

2) "Universal"? I'm not sure what you mean. I definitely never mean that taste was universal. Quite the contrary, I think it's subjective. I understand where you are trying to go with this though, but you misunderstand me.

3) I've explained it in my reply to shmerek and other posts, but I'll say it again. What I meant, was that the ability to compare movies together "as a whole", is similar to judging which is art, and which is art of poorer quality, or not art at all. As I said in the previous post, when you judge a movie to see if it's "art", then you are judging it on every aspect. Similar to judging if a human being is bad or not. If you think Joseph Stalin was a good person, then it reflects your own view of the world. Yes. Your opinion, when judging things as a whole, reflects your own quality, or morals if you will. There is the correlation.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by itistoday:
Shmerek. I just told you, it's NOT taste in movies. It's the ability to say which is better than which.

To say which is better is completely subjective therefore how is that any different than taste? It is like saying Wagner is a better composer than Mozart. Even if you analyse the music it is still subjective, one person might find more value in a certain aspect of composition than the other and that is still an opinion which cannot be quantified. And what forms one's opinion as to what qualities are more importantor "better" as you put it.... personal taste.

I can see why you're confused, seeing as they do seem similar at first glance, but there is an important difference.

Sorry I am not confused in the least. I think your logic is crap

For example, the example i used in that post: "legally blonde". Legally Blonde falls into "my taste" for films, but I would rank it lower than say Some Like it Hot. But that's a bad example, because I wouldn't consider someone a moron if they ranked it higher than Some like it hot. I would, however, consider them dumb if they ranked Austin Powers to be "better" than Some Like it Hot.

Blah blah that points out nothing except that you believe you opinion is superior to those of others.

What does this has to do with morals?
...

Nothing.

This is because when you judge a movie on the whole, you are judging it as if you were judging a person. If you came up to someone and told them that you really liked Hitler, then they would think less of you. All the time, in all of my arguements in this thread, this is the kind of "judging" that I'm refering to. It is a the kind of "judging" that a film critic makes.

So when Siskel liked a movie that Ebert didn't Ebert would therefore think less of Siskel? Hmmm... interesting.

So what's the moral of the story? That if you liked Revolutions for one reason or another, than you are not an idiot. But if you say that as a whole, this film was better than Indiana Jones, then I will think less of you. ]

Heaven forbid that you might think less of me and for the record I have not seen Revolutions. In my opinion anyone who attaches that much importance to movie preferences when judging character is a moron.

[itistoday]

Originally posted by shmerek:
To say which is better is completely subjective therefore how is that any different than taste? It is like saying Wagner is a better composer than Mozart. Even if you analyse the music it is still subjecti....

[Snip this idiocy]

I'm sorry shmerek. I read your reply, and realized that my words were wasted on you. You read what I said and failed to understand it and then failed to understand that you failed to understand. You replied to it while reading it, which is wrong. You're supposed to reply to it after you read everything (at least that's definitely how it seemed like).

And to top it all off, you completely missed my point. It's as if you read what I wrote, were too overwhelmed, refused to understand in all of your stubborness, and proceeded to calling me a moron, AFTER informing me that you haven't EVEN SEEN Revolutions. Granted you're not arguing about Revolutions, but about my views of life, but at least I've read what people have said and tried to understand what they were telling me. So far you have failed to have the decency to ever try to understand what I'm saying.

On top of that your logic is flawed. So personally, I don't want to argue with you because to me you are one of those morons that I'm refering to. Thunderous_funker has much better points than you, and actually has the decency to read what I wrote and think about it. You are simply repeated yourself.

[Myriad]

Movies don't have reasons for sucking. They suck because people say they suck. When Battlefield Earth came out, everyone said it sucked. Sure, there could have been a million reasons for it sucking, but when someone asks you "Hey, you want to go see Battlefield Earth, you reply, "Nah, I heard it sucked." Or, you could choose to see it anyway and join the chorus of people who came out of the theatre and say "Man, that sucked," thus adding to the general perception of suckiness a movie has. I've never seen Battlefield Earth, but I feel justified in saying that it probably sucks, because I have authoritative testimony from critics and movie goers everywhere.

The new Matrix movies; they suck. I saw Reloaded, and I have my reasons for thinking it sucked, but it is branded a sucky movie for the same reasons as Battlefield Earth. The number of people who say that they suck outnumber those who say that the movie rocked hard. And keep in mind, no one goes to a movie like this wanting to be disappointed, although I generally heard this as an excuse for much of the poor word of mouth it has received.

And don't rip on movie critics. I hate it when people say that one should ignore critics as to be an independent thinker. If a movie is generally perceived to suck, and you see it anyway, you're instead listening to the hype machines that drive today's ticket sales. It worked on me. Reloaded got trashed by the critics and by my friends, but the two years of build-up caused me to fork over my $8.50, and the following two and a half hours were a crushing blow to my movie going spirit.

Please people, if sucky movies make lots of money, then sucky movies is all they'll make.