list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around The Matrix Revolutions on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/The_Matrix_Revolutions/223560/default.aspx Title: The Matrix Revolutions
Year: 2003
Director: Andy Wachowski, Larry Wachowski
Plot: Shot back-to-back with The Matrix Reloaded, the third and final installment of Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski's sci-fi action saga picks up where the second film left off. Neo (Keanu Reeves) remains unconscious in the real world, caught in a mysterious subway station that lies between the machine world and the Matrix, and Bane (Ian Bliss) is still a conduit for Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving), who continues to grow out of control, threatening to destroy both worlds. Meanwhile, as the sentinels get closer and closer to Zion, the citizens of the earth's last inhabited city prepare for the inevitable onslaught. By bargaining with The Merovingian (Lambert Wilson), Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss) and Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) are able to free Neo who, after meeting with The Oracle (Mary Alice stepping in for the late Gloria Foster), decides that he must leave Zion and head for the machine mainframe. As Neo and Trinity venture into the dangerous machine world, with hopes of stopping both the machines and Agent Smith, their comrades in Zion attempt to fight off the attacking sentinels with the odds stacked greatly against them. Other cast members returning include Monica Bellucci, Ngai Sing, and Harold Perrineau Jr. ~ Matthew Tobey, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 78
Number of Lists: 111
Number of blog posts: 8
Number of discussion threads: 6
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Fri, 14 Aug 2009 04:41:19 GMTThe Matrix Revolutions2003Andy Wachowski, Larry WachowskiShot back-to-back with <a href=/films/220471/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>The Matrix Reloaded</a>, the third and final installment of <a href="/players/P___203462/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Andy Wachowski</a> and <a href="/players/P___203463/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Larry Wachowski</a>'s sci-fi action saga picks up where the second film left off. Neo (<a href="/players/P____59355/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Keanu Reeves</a>) remains unconscious in the real world, caught in a mysterious subway station that lies between the machine world and the Matrix, and Bane (Ian Bliss) is still a conduit for Agent Smith (<a href="/players/P____75146/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Hugo Weaving</a>), who continues to grow out of control, threatening to destroy both worlds. Meanwhile, as the sentinels get closer and closer to Zion, the citizens of the earth's last inhabited city prepare for the inevitable onslaught. By bargaining with The Merovingian (<a href="/players/P____76764/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Lambert Wilson</a>), Trinity (<a href="/players/P___230666/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Carrie-Anne Moss</a>) and Morpheus (<a href="/players/P____23625/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Laurence Fishburne</a>) are able to free Neo who, after meeting with The Oracle (<a href="/players/P______923/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Mary Alice</a> stepping in for the late <a href="/players/P____24443/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Gloria Foster</a>), decides that he must leave Zion and head for the machine mainframe. As Neo and Trinity venture into the dangerous machine world, with hopes of stopping both the machines and Agent Smith, their comrades in Zion attempt to fight off the attacking sentinels with the odds stacked greatly against them. Other cast members returning include <a href="/players/P___195176/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Monica Bellucci</a>, Ngai Sing, and Harold Perrineau Jr. ~ Matthew Tobey, All Movie Guide78Tag Target (>10)111863http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u38276zt6ex.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Matrix_Revolutions/223560/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_mow/archive/2009/4/27/41796.aspx Post By: The_MOW
Post To: The_MOW Blog
Post Date: 4/27/2009 11:51:15 AM
Body: "The Matrix Revolutions" is not a vast improvement on the mediocre first installment in the series. The only thing that saves this one, like the first movie, is the spectacular special effects. This time, the machines attack the human resistance in their on proverbial backyard -- and almost destroy mankind once and for all. However, the biggest problem for the machines and humans is "Smith" (Hugo Weaving), a program created by the machines that has grown stronger and more dangerous to mankind and machine. The acting is better in this movie, but it is still not perfect. I just could not believe any performance. Another problem with the characters is the development of the ones introduced in this movie. You don't learn anything, if at all, about these people. The first movie was shot with a much darker tone than this one. Although grays and blacks were heavily used in everything from scenery to wardrobe, there was much brighter lighting in this movie. You have to be a fan of the trilogy to enjoy this movie -- which I am not. It could be a lot better than it is.
]]>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:51:15 GMTThe_MOWThe_MOW Blog4/27/2009 11:51:15 AM"The Matrix Revolutions" is not a vast improvement on the mediocre first installment in the series. The only thing that saves this one, like the first movie, is the spectacular special effects. This time, the machines attack the human resistance in their on proverbial backyard -- and almost destroy mankind once and for all. However, the biggest problem for the machines and humans is "Smith" (Hugo Weaving), a program created by the machines that has grown stronger and more dangerous to mankind and machine. The acting is better in this movie, but it is still not perfect. I just could not believe any performance. Another problem with the characters is the development of the ones introduced in this movie. You don't learn anything, if at all, about these people. The first movie was shot with a much darker tone than this one. Although grays and blacks were heavily used in everything from scenery to wardrobe, there was much brighter lighting in this movie. You have to be a fan of the trilogy to enjoy this movie -- which I am not. It could be a lot better than it is. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/11/37218.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/11/2008 3:01:25 PM
Body: Terminator Salvation, due in May of next year, stars Christian Bale as John Conner. The film will be a quasi-reboot of the series, picking up after the machines have destroyed civilization and Conner is leading a small band of survivors in a war against the machines. The following is an open letter to McG, the director of the film. Dear McG, Lots of people have been talking about your new movie this week. Several sites have posted some leaked material featuring the work of production designer Martin Laing. Many sites had a behind the scenes featurette with Laing and a gallery of concept art, most of which were taken down at the request of the studio. One of the only ones to survive at time of this writing is on io9. Ain’t it Cool News reported that while James Cameron did not have a hear-to-heart with you, as you claimed in July, he still has high hopes for the film. When I saw you at Comic-Con in July, I was very pleased with the early footage and what you and the cast had to say about the film. One thing you said was that you were interested in what we thought about the early images and the direction the film was heading. I hope it’s not too late, because I have a few suggestions. First of all, bravo on hiring Martin Laing. This guy doesn’t have a huge list of credits, but his work on City of Ember was great, and the concepts for new the Terminators look really good. In the leaked featurette he seems very tuned in to the fact that this film takes place at a very particular time in the story line of the Terminator universe: after the nuclear holocaust, but before any machines are sent back in time to meddle with the Conners. So while the machines are really badass, they’re actually less advanced than Arnold’s T-800. Also, they have no need to be disguised as humans, so we’re treated to Terminators that take the form of motorcycles, snakes, and a huge Transformer-like behemoth called a Harvester. While the images of these new (or is it old?) Terminators have me salivating, they also raise some concerns. I’d like to know that you’re going to avoid what I call The Matrix Revolutions Problem. The first Matrix was a great movie, the second one was alright, but The Matrix Revolutions was a steaming pile of crap. There are many reasons for this, but there are three I’d like to focus on here: One, the plot felt like it was on autopilot, the conflicts previously set up were being worked out without any convincing new conflicts being introduced. Two, the battle between the humans and the machines became epic to the point of feeling bloated and silly. Three, the Matrix sequels were completely inside the rabbit hole. Rather than being about the incursion of an fantastic reality upon the real world, they were fully immersed in that fantastic reality. The first of these concerns, that the plot will feel locked in place, could be a real problem for the Terminator series because of the use of time travel. (Spoilers of the existing three Terminator films ahead.) We know that Kyle Reese has to survive up to the point where he’s sent back to save Sarah Conner and father John Conner. We also know that John Conner survives long enough to send him, that the machines will send three Terminators to kill the Conners, and that the resistance will send two Terminators to protect them. Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines did show that the timeline can be altered, as Judgment Day was delayed from when it was originally predicted to happen. Also, Christian Bale’s line in the teaser trailer, “This isn’t the future my mother warned me about, I’m not sure if we can win this war,” indicates that you and the writers have realized this is a concern. My advice is this: If you have to amend the timeline, fine. The important thing is that a sense of urgency and dread permeates the film. The original films, especially the first two, succeeded because they created a tension between inevitability and resistance. The second concern, that the need to one-up previous villains will make the new film outlandish, parallels the trouble the Matrix films encountered. The set-up of the first Matrix was so cool: you’re plugged into a machine, but you can free your mind and fight, and the machines send agents after you. Simple enough. But in the second and third films, we were introduced to computer viruses and architects and all kinds of complicating crap. All of which probably looked really good on paper, but when inserted into the movies they really just distracted from what was great about the first film, namely that technology is a means of control that we have the power to resist. As much as I’m looking forward to seeing Christian Bale and Sam Worthington destroy a 50 foot tall Harvester, don’t forget what made the action sequences in the first two films work so well, a sustained feeling of desperate survival. The heroes didn’t really fight, rather they tenaciously avoided extermination like cockroaches. The third concern could be a blessing or a curse. What the first Matrix shares with all three existing Terminator films is that a fantastic reality comes into conflict with the normal worldt. The prospects that the world is an elaborate computer program or that a man who saved your life is a warrior from the future are much easier to swallow when we share in the initial disbelief of Neo or Sarah Conner, respectively. The Matrix sequels suffered because the outlandish state of the world was a given. The Terminator films, up to this point, have always been careful to include characters that are in the same frame of mind as Sarah was in the first film, unable to believe that a war with the machines is possible. This tension over the acceptance of the future is the driving force of conflict in the first three Terminator films. Sarah Conner exemplifies this in T2, she’s a prophet betrayed by those she’s trying to save. The harder she tries to convince people that the nuclear holocaust is coming, the more they think she’s crazy. Terminator Salvation can still be a great movie, McG — don’t listen to the haters. You just need to focus on the elements of the previous films that can thrive in this new premise, and let go of the ones that cannot. There’s nothing in the previous films that indicates how John’s war against the machines ultimately turns out. Godspeed, McG, and remember: “the future is not set, there is not fate but what we make for ourselves.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:01:25 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/11/2008 3:01:25 PM Terminator Salvation, due in May of next year, stars Christian Bale as John Conner. The film will be a quasi-reboot of the series, picking up after the machines have destroyed civilization and Conner is leading a small band of survivors in a war against the machines. The following is an open letter to McG, the director of the film. Dear McG, Lots of people have been talking about your new movie this week. Several sites have posted some leaked material featuring the work of production designer Martin Laing. Many sites had a behind the scenes featurette with Laing and a gallery of concept art, most of which were taken down at the request of the studio. One of the only ones to survive at time of this writing is on io9. Ain’t it Cool News reported that while James Cameron did not have a hear-to-heart with you, as you claimed in July, he still has high hopes for the film. When I saw you at Comic-Con in July, I was very pleased with the early footage and what you and the cast had to say about the film. One thing you said was that you were interested in what we thought about the early images and the direction the film was heading. I hope it’s not too late, because I have a few suggestions. First of all, bravo on hiring Martin Laing. This guy doesn’t have a huge list of credits, but his work on City of Ember was great, and the concepts for new the Terminators look really good. In the leaked featurette he seems very tuned in to the fact that this film takes place at a very particular time in the story line of the Terminator universe: after the nuclear holocaust, but before any machines are sent back in time to meddle with the Conners. So while the machines are really badass, they’re actually less advanced than Arnold’s T-800. Also, they have no need to be disguised as humans, so we’re treated to Terminators that take the form of motorcycles, snakes, and a huge Transformer-like behemoth called a Harvester. While the images of these new (or is it old?) Terminators have me salivating, they also raise some concerns. I’d like to know that you’re going to avoid what I call The Matrix Revolutions Problem. The first Matrix was a great movie, the second one was alright, but The Matrix Revolutions was a steaming pile of crap. There are many reasons for this, but there are three I’d like to focus on here: One, the plot felt like it was on autopilot, the conflicts previously set up were being worked out without any convincing new conflicts being introduced. Two, the battle between the humans and the machines became epic to the point of feeling bloated and silly. Three, the Matrix sequels were completely inside the rabbit hole. Rather than being about the incursion of an fantastic reality upon the real world, they were fully immersed in that fantastic reality. The first of these concerns, that the plot will feel locked in place, could be a real problem for the Terminator series because of the use of time travel. (Spoilers of the existing three Terminator films ahead.) We know that Kyle Reese has to survive up to the point where he’s sent back to save Sarah Conner and father John Conner. We also know that John Conner survives long enough to send him, that the machines will send three Terminators to kill the Conners, and that the resistance will send two Terminators to protect them. Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines did show that the timeline can be altered, as Judgment Day was delayed from when it was originally predicted to happen. Also, Christian Bale’s line in the teaser trailer, “This isn’t the future my mother warned me about, I’m not sure if we can win this war,” indicates that you and the writers have realized this is a concern. My advice is this: If you have to amend the timeline, fine. The important thing is that a sense of urgency and dread permeates the film. The original films, especially the first two, succeeded because they created a tension between inevitability and resistance. The second concern, that the need to one-up previous villains will make the new film outlandish, parallels the trouble the Matrix films encountered. The set-up of the first Matrix was so cool: you’re plugged into a machine, but you can free your mind and fight, and the machines send agents after you. Simple enough. But in the second and third films, we were introduced to computer viruses and architects and all kinds of complicating crap. All of which probably looked really good on paper, but when inserted into the movies they really just distracted from what was great about the first film, namely that technology is a means of control that we have the power to resist. As much as I’m looking forward to seeing Christian Bale and Sam Worthington destroy a 50 foot tall Harvester, don’t forget what made the action sequences in the first two films work so well, a sustained feeling of desperate survival. The heroes didn’t really fight, rather they tenaciously avoided extermination like cockroaches. The third concern could be a blessing or a curse. What the first Matrix shares with all three existing Terminator films is that a fantastic reality comes into conflict with the normal worldt. The prospects that the world is an elaborate computer program or that a man who saved your life is a warrior from the future are much easier to swallow when we share in the initial disbelief of Neo or Sarah Conner, respectively. The Matrix sequels suffered because the outlandish state of the world was a given. The Terminator films, up to this point, have always been careful to include characters that are in the same frame of mind as Sarah was in the first film, unable to believe that a war with the machines is possible. This tension over the acceptance of the future is the driving force of conflict in the first three Terminator films. Sarah Conner exemplifies this in T2, she’s a prophet betrayed by those she’s trying to save. The harder she tries to convince people that the nuclear holocaust is coming, the more they think she’s crazy. Terminator Salvation can still be a great movie, McG — don’t listen to the haters. You just need to focus on the elements of the previous films that can thrive in this new premise, and let go of the ones that cannot. There’s nothing in the previous films that indicates how John’s war against the machines ultimately turns out. Godspeed, McG, and remember: “the future is not set, there is not fate but what we make for ourselves.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_August_11_The_Secret_Society/625/33988/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: unclefestering
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 8/13/2008 11:42:07 PM
Body: So here's my question: Do the Matrix movies belong in the Secret Society list? I don't want to put it there because the people trapped in the Matrix don't know about the forces that control them. I don't really think of it as a Secret Society in that respect, maybe a Big Brother movie. I do want to add them because it seems clear in the second and third movies, that many of the programs created to control the Matrix and its inhabitants clearly do not know the plans of the machines outside the Matrix. They don't understand why the Key Master has to serve the One in order to preserve the Matrix. It is clear why Agent Smith feels betrayed by the Machines that control his world, they turn out to lie just like the humans he despises. Now that I've said the above, I want to make it clear that the Matrix movies are clearly a set of diminishing returns. The first one is brilliant. The second is medocre and the third is wretched.
]]>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 03:42:07 GMTunclefesteringWeekly Theme8/13/2008 11:42:07 PMSo here's my question: Do the Matrix movies belong in the Secret Society list? I don't want to put it there because the people trapped in the Matrix don't know about the forces that control them. I don't really think of it as a Secret Society in that respect, maybe a Big Brother movie. I do want to add them because it seems clear in the second and third movies, that many of the programs created to control the Matrix and its inhabitants clearly do not know the plans of the machines outside the Matrix. They don't understand why the Key Master has to serve the One in order to preserve the Matrix. It is clear why Agent Smith feels betrayed by the Machines that control his world, they turn out to lie just like the humans he despises. Now that I've said the above, I want to make it clear that the Matrix movies are clearly a set of diminishing returns. The first one is brilliant. The second is medocre and the third is wretched. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/7/17/32681.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/17/2008 2:00:47 PM
Body: Remember when trailers would name-appropriately trail the movie? Me neither. I don’t think anyone does. But occasionally trailers are still shown after the main feature. Back to the Future Part III was advertised at the end of Part II, and The Matrix Reloaded ended with a preview of The Matrix Revolutions. As next installments of cliff-hanging series, though, these sequels were like the old serials from which trailers received their name (in one of multiple explanations). I suggest that previews of big movies starring the main actor of the film you’re currently seeing also follow this model. Why? Because after watching this teaser (boy does it tease right) trailer for next summer’s Terminator Salvation, which is showing with The Dark Knight and which stars TDK’s Christian Bale, I’m too distracted by my excitement for the nex season to fully concentrate on the blockbuster at hand. Wouldn’t it be better if Warner Bros. instead slipped this trailer in right before the Dark Knight credits with an announcement like, “you’ve just seen Christian Bale in The Dark Knight; see him again next summer in … ” A roundup of favorite comments about the trailer itself (as opposed to its placement) after the jump: Erik Henriksen at the Portland Mercury’s Blogtown: “For fuck’s sake, considering it’s a PG-13 Terminator directed by McG, it doesn’t look nearly as terrible as it should.” Jared Pacheco at JoBlo/Arrow in the Head: “Dare I say McG’s TERMINATOR SALVATION might actually be worth watching? That’s the first thing that crossed my mind.” Vic Holtreman at Screen Rant: “My first thought? It’s not awful.” Devin Faraci at CHUD: “I’m surprised that the teaser is so short on imagery - they have a lot of great physical action scenes in the can that could be shown. Still, this is an appetite whetter indeed, and I’m excited to see what goodies they bring to Comic Con next week.” Josh Tyler at Cinema Blend: “What little there is to see however, looks alright. It’s also worth noting that the movie’s awkward, unweidly subtitole ‘The Future Begins’ is nowhere to be found in the trailer. Maybe that means they’ve dropped it. We can only hope. “ Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:00:47 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/17/2008 2:00:47 PM Remember when trailers would name-appropriately trail the movie? Me neither. I don’t think anyone does. But occasionally trailers are still shown after the main feature. Back to the Future Part III was advertised at the end of Part II, and The Matrix Reloaded ended with a preview of The Matrix Revolutions. As next installments of cliff-hanging series, though, these sequels were like the old serials from which trailers received their name (in one of multiple explanations). I suggest that previews of big movies starring the main actor of the film you’re currently seeing also follow this model. Why? Because after watching this teaser (boy does it tease right) trailer for next summer’s Terminator Salvation, which is showing with The Dark Knight and which stars TDK’s Christian Bale, I’m too distracted by my excitement for the nex season to fully concentrate on the blockbuster at hand. Wouldn’t it be better if Warner Bros. instead slipped this trailer in right before the Dark Knight credits with an announcement like, “you’ve just seen Christian Bale in The Dark Knight; see him again next summer in … ” A roundup of favorite comments about the trailer itself (as opposed to its placement) after the jump: Erik Henriksen at the Portland Mercury’s Blogtown: “For fuck’s sake, considering it’s a PG-13 Terminator directed by McG, it doesn’t look nearly as terrible as it should.” Jared Pacheco at JoBlo/Arrow in the Head: “Dare I say McG’s TERMINATOR SALVATION might actually be worth watching? That’s the first thing that crossed my mind.” Vic Holtreman at Screen Rant: “My first thought? It’s not awful.” Devin Faraci at CHUD: “I’m surprised that the teaser is so short on imagery - they have a lot of great physical action scenes in the can that could be shown. Still, this is an appetite whetter indeed, and I’m excited to see what goodies they bring to Comic Con next week.” Josh Tyler at Cinema Blend: “What little there is to see however, looks alright. It’s also worth noting that the movie’s awkward, unweidly subtitole ‘The Future Begins’ is nowhere to be found in the trailer. Maybe that means they’ve dropped it. We can only hope. “ Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/shaunhuston/archive/2008/7/3/32080.aspx Post By: ShaunHuston
Post To: ShaunHuston filmblog
Post Date: 7/3/2008 3:01:33 PM
Body: The Science Fiction Top 10 is notable for having what is arguably the least disputable number one on all of these lists in 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). Even after two decades, the film remains gorgeous and convincing-looking, and still capable of provoking debate about technology, the nature of intelligence, and humanity's identity and place in the universe. It has left an indelible mark on how the future, and how space and space travel, is visualized and imagined, especially, but not exclusively, on film. It's a masterful work, and it's difficult for me to think of a more deserving selection for the top of this list. At the same time, this Top 10 has its share of both puzzling selections and curious absences.E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) at number three leaves much to be desired. Not only does the movie not hold up to repeated viewing, but it also barely qualifies as science fiction. True, the AFI's definition of this genre calls for “imaginative speculation”, but it also states that such speculation be 'married' with a “scientific or technological premise”. Of all the films on the list, E.T. offers the barest of such premises. Does it make any difference that E.T. was left behind by a space ship as opposed to, say, simply getting lost on the way back to his/her/its underground burrow in the woods? I don't think it does. Most of the films on the list are largely “soft” science fiction; not a phrase I'm terribly fond of, but it does usefully distinguish between works based in well-established theory, practice, and knowledge in the natural and physical sciences from those that spring from the margins and wild fringes of those fields and those that are, perhaps, more about speculation in the social, rather than the natural and physical, sciences. The original Star Wars (1977) is a good example of the former, while A Clockwork Orange (1971) is a good example of the latter. But, unlike E.T., I think that the science, however “soft” it maybe, matters to those films. The kind of alien otherness that E.T. represents does not need to be extra terrestrial, and it seems frankly doubtful that her/his/its form has much relationship to whatever is “known” about the possibilities of non-Earth life. E.T. strikes me as pure fantasy, and, indeed, a film that seemingly satisfies the AFI's criteria for that genre better than some of the selections that actually are on that list (mind you, I'm not advocating that E.T. replace any of those movies). The Matrix (1999) immediately stands out as an important omission from this Top 10. Think what you want about where the Wachowskis went after this movie, the original is and was culturally and aesthetically important and influential. As science fiction, it, and its larger storyworld, are more interesting and provocative than that of Star Wars, and no one seems to have held George Lucas' later sins against him in evaluating his movie. I still find myself wanting to puzzle out Reloaded (2003) and Revolutions (2003), while I just avoid the other Star Wars films after Jedi (1983), and even here I often tune out after Han Solo is rescued. The remaining films on the list are all reasonable selections, although I would make an argument for Brazil (1985) instead of, say, Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991). But at that point I think I've entered the realm of personal taste beyond that of critical judgment and analysis (which is to suggest, while I think E.T. does not belong on this list, I can see the argument for T2, not only as a matter of that film actually being science fiction, but being good science fiction). Link to introduction. Originally posted on:Short-Circuit Signs
]]>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:01:33 GMTShaunHustonShaunHuston filmblog7/3/2008 3:01:33 PMThe Science Fiction Top 10 is notable for having what is arguably the least disputable number one on all of these lists in 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). Even after two decades, the film remains gorgeous and convincing-looking, and still capable of provoking debate about technology, the nature of intelligence, and humanity's identity and place in the universe. It has left an indelible mark on how the future, and how space and space travel, is visualized and imagined, especially, but not exclusively, on film. It's a masterful work, and it's difficult for me to think of a more deserving selection for the top of this list. At the same time, this Top 10 has its share of both puzzling selections and curious absences.E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) at number three leaves much to be desired. Not only does the movie not hold up to repeated viewing, but it also barely qualifies as science fiction. True, the AFI's definition of this genre calls for “imaginative speculation”, but it also states that such speculation be 'married' with a “scientific or technological premise”. Of all the films on the list, E.T. offers the barest of such premises. Does it make any difference that E.T. was left behind by a space ship as opposed to, say, simply getting lost on the way back to his/her/its underground burrow in the woods? I don't think it does. Most of the films on the list are largely “soft” science fiction; not a phrase I'm terribly fond of, but it does usefully distinguish between works based in well-established theory, practice, and knowledge in the natural and physical sciences from those that spring from the margins and wild fringes of those fields and those that are, perhaps, more about speculation in the social, rather than the natural and physical, sciences. The original Star Wars (1977) is a good example of the former, while A Clockwork Orange (1971) is a good example of the latter. But, unlike E.T., I think that the science, however “soft” it maybe, matters to those films. The kind of alien otherness that E.T. represents does not need to be extra terrestrial, and it seems frankly doubtful that her/his/its form has much relationship to whatever is “known” about the possibilities of non-Earth life. E.T. strikes me as pure fantasy, and, indeed, a film that seemingly satisfies the AFI's criteria for that genre better than some of the selections that actually are on that list (mind you, I'm not advocating that E.T. replace any of those movies). The Matrix (1999) immediately stands out as an important omission from this Top 10. Think what you want about where the Wachowskis went after this movie, the original is and was culturally and aesthetically important and influential. As science fiction, it, and its larger storyworld, are more interesting and provocative than that of Star Wars, and no one seems to have held George Lucas' later sins against him in evaluating his movie. I still find myself wanting to puzzle out Reloaded (2003) and Revolutions (2003), while I just avoid the other Star Wars films after Jedi (1983), and even here I often tune out after Han Solo is rescued. The remaining films on the list are all reasonable selections, although I would make an argument for Brazil (1985) instead of, say, Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991). But at that point I think I've entered the realm of personal taste beyond that of critical judgment and analysis (which is to suggest, while I think E.T. does not belong on this list, I can see the argument for T2, not only as a matter of that film actually being science fiction, but being good science fiction). Link to introduction. Originally posted on:Short-Circuit Signs http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_June_30_Post_Apocalyptic_Funt/625/31934/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 6/30/2008 7:28:13 PM
Body: So many fun little features to choose from, where ever shall I begin? Undeniably the best (or just the most pervasive) films about living in a post-apocalyptic society are: Battle Royale The Matrix Mad Max, The Road Warrior & Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome 12 Monkeys & La Jetee Delicatessen & The City of Lost Children Those straddling the line with extreme lovers and haters: Reign of Fire Tank Girl The Omega Man I Am Legend The Day After Tomorrow Waterworld Akira Doomsday Southland Tales The Matrix Reloaded & The Matrix Revolutions And those that have been cast into the gallows of film history: Titan A.E. Aeon Flux (the movie, not the television series) The Postman Teenage Caveman Battlefield Earth Lastly, Wall-E, which is apparently the best movie ever. I haven't had a chance to see it yet. And The Road, which has yet to come out yet, but after having read the book I am utterly certain the film will be incredible.
]]>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:28:13 GMTmercurialWeekly Theme6/30/2008 7:28:13 PMSo many fun little features to choose from, where ever shall I begin? Undeniably the best (or just the most pervasive) films about living in a post-apocalyptic society are: Battle Royale The Matrix Mad Max, The Road Warrior &amp; Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome 12 Monkeys &amp; La Jetee Delicatessen &amp; The City of Lost Children Those straddling the line with extreme lovers and haters: Reign of Fire Tank Girl The Omega Man I Am Legend The Day After Tomorrow Waterworld Akira Doomsday Southland Tales The Matrix Reloaded &amp; The Matrix Revolutions And those that have been cast into the gallows of film history: Titan A.E. Aeon Flux (the movie, not the television series) The Postman Teenage Caveman Battlefield Earth Lastly, Wall-E, which is apparently the best movie ever. I haven't had a chance to see it yet. And The Road, which has yet to come out yet, but after having read the book I am utterly certain the film will be incredible. http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Everybody_Seems_To_Love_But_I_Hate/190/16279/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: lukasblu
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 7/25/2007 9:32:02 PM
Body: 1&2 - the matrix sequels (The Matrix Reloaded (2003)&The Matrix Revolutions (2003)) - all action with not much depth and originality that is even close to the original;matrix reloaded bored me almost put me to sleep when i saw it originally in the theater.3 - Night at the Museum (2006) was not even the slighest been funny to me;very childish humor;what a diappointment especially for ben stiller4 - Babel (2006) - overrated5 - Brokeback Mountain (2005) - Very disappointing story and highly overrated; i do not believe it deserved an oscar 6 - Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) - way long ; too much going on in the story,not to much focus in a major story line; bored me; disapponted because i liked Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)
]]>Thu, 26 Jul 2007 01:32:02 GMTlukasbluTop 57/25/2007 9:32:02 PM1&amp;2 - the matrix sequels (The Matrix Reloaded (2003)&amp;The Matrix Revolutions (2003)) - all action with not much depth and originality that is even close to the original;matrix reloaded bored me almost put me to sleep when i saw it originally in the theater.3 - Night at the Museum (2006) was not even the slighest been funny to me;very childish humor;what a diappointment especially for ben stiller4 - Babel (2006) - overrated5 - Brokeback Mountain (2005) - Very disappointing story and highly overrated; i do not believe it deserved an oscar 6 - Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man&#39;s Chest (2006) - way long ; too much going on in the story,not to much focus in a major story line; bored me; disapponted because i liked Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) http://www.spout.com/groups/sci_fi/Re_why_matrix_2_and_3_are_in_the_suck_list/4/13464/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: sci-fi
Post Date: 7/8/2007 9:33:20 PM
Body: I actually thought that Reloaded was somewhere halfway between the original movie which I liked pretty well and Revolutions which I thought was fairly bad. I can't remember why exactly though. I think it had to do with a lot of things including depending on empathy for characters that were new and just thrown at you and that really acted unsympathetically to me at least.
]]>Mon, 09 Jul 2007 01:33:20 GMTRisseladasci-fi7/8/2007 9:33:20 PMI actually thought that Reloaded was somewhere halfway between the original movie which I liked pretty well and Revolutions which I thought was fairly bad. I can't remember why exactly though. I think it had to do with a lot of things including depending on empathy for characters that were new and just thrown at you and that really acted unsympathetically to me at least. http://www.spout.com/blogs/jva/archive/2007/7/1/12781.aspx Post By: jva
Post To: jva Blog
Post Date: 7/1/2007 4:26:40 PM
Body: Final episode of the matrix trilogy really wraps it. At least for me. A lot of ideas were in my head, how all of it is going to end and none of them were correct. I think the ending works wery well and is logical. I've had a lot of discussions with my friends about the trilogy plus the ending and they do seem to disagree with me about this fact. I think this was a great ending for a great movie trilogy. Highly recommended material for a movie night with friends, six hours straight of Matrix. I know, I've tried it :)
]]>Sun, 01 Jul 2007 20:26:40 GMTjvajva Blog7/1/2007 4:26:40 PMFinal episode of the matrix trilogy really wraps it. At least for me. A lot of ideas were in my head, how all of it is going to end and none of them were correct. I think the ending works wery well and is logical. I've had a lot of discussions with my friends about the trilogy plus the ending and they do seem to disagree with me about this fact. I think this was a great ending for a great movie trilogy. Highly recommended material for a movie night with friends, six hours straight of Matrix. I know, I've tried it :) http://www.spout.com/blogs/mythman/archive/2007/6/4/10082.aspx Post By: mythman
Post To: Watch Everything and Still See ONLY What Is Good
Post Date: 6/4/2007 8:25:00 AM
Body: The Whole Ten Yards--another cheap sequel I bought at the FAMILY DOLLAR (just like Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King and--you guessed it--THE MATRIX REVOLUTIONS)--was a relation of a rather ingenious situation.Matthew Perry's character is just 'along for the ride' of Bruce Willis's hitman-character's fortune-plan.While I'm sure The Whole Nine Yards was also a good movie, you don't need to have seen it to catch enough of its 'gist' leading into the plot of The Whole Ten ... i.e. The Whole Ten might hold some sort of "completion" of The Whole Nine, but you don't need to know that there was ever Nine to enjoy the Ten (unlike REVOLUTIONS, for which you need to have seen RELOADED to "get").
]]>Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:25:00 GMTmythmanWatch Everything and Still See ONLY What Is Good6/4/2007 8:25:00 AMThe Whole Ten Yards--another cheap sequel I bought at the FAMILY DOLLAR (just like Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King and--you guessed it--THE MATRIX REVOLUTIONS)--was a relation of a rather ingenious situation.Matthew Perry&#39;s character is just &#39;along for the ride&#39; of Bruce Willis&#39;s hitman-character&#39;s fortune-plan.While I&#39;m sure The Whole Nine Yards was also a good movie, you don&#39;t need to have seen it to catch enough of its &#39;gist&#39; leading into the plot of The Whole Ten ... i.e. The Whole Ten might hold some sort of "completion" of The Whole Nine, but you don&#39;t need to know that there was ever Nine to enjoy the Ten (unlike REVOLUTIONS, for which you need to have seen RELOADED to "get"). http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12477

Number of people who tagged: 336

Number of times used: 1475

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:41 GMT124773361475Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/family/MemberTagFilms.aspxfamily
Number of films tagged: 6288

Number of people who tagged: 226

Number of times used: 1138

]]>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:09:21 GMT62882261138Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/war/MemberTagFilms.aspxwar
Number of films tagged: 6175

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 606

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:02:41 GMT6175179606Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/amazing/MemberTagFilms.aspxamazing
Number of films tagged: 179

Number of people who tagged: 158

Number of times used: 253

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 05:49:13 GMT179158253Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/friendship/MemberTagFilms.aspxfriendship
Number of films tagged: 6791

Number of people who tagged: 154

Number of times used: 978

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:50:40 GMT6791154978Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/action/MemberTagFilms.aspxaction
Number of films tagged: 316

Number of people who tagged: 111

Number of times used: 457

]]>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:13:35 GMT316111457Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/future/MemberTagFilms.aspxfuture
Number of films tagged: 492

Number of people who tagged: 101

Number of times used: 258

]]>Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:46:43 GMT492101258Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sad/MemberTagFilms.aspxsad
Number of films tagged: 170

Number of people who tagged: 96

Number of times used: 226

]]>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:35:46 GMT17096226Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/adventure/MemberTagFilms.aspxadventure
Number of films tagged: 227

Number of people who tagged: 95

Number of times used: 367

]]>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:34:17 GMT22795367Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/weird/MemberTagFilms.aspxweird
Number of films tagged: 90

Number of people who tagged: 83

Number of times used: 131

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:57:36 GMT9083131Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/time/MemberTagFilms.aspxtime
Number of films tagged: 310

Number of people who tagged: 79

Number of times used: 101

]]>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:27:45 GMT31079101Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/disappointing/MemberTagFilms.aspxdisappointing
Number of films tagged: 75

Number of people who tagged: 53

Number of times used: 101

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:25:18 GMT7553101Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/superhero/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuperhero
Number of films tagged: 864

Number of people who tagged: 50

Number of times used: 127

]]>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:49:48 GMT86450127Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/survival/MemberTagFilms.aspxsurvival
Number of films tagged: 67

Number of people who tagged: 48

Number of times used: 98

]]>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:43:56 GMT674898Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hero/MemberTagFilms.aspxhero
Number of films tagged: 638

Number of people who tagged: 43

Number of times used: 141

]]>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:55:16 GMT63843141Tag