Jon . . . why the hate?
I just heard Jon Stewart on The Daily Show totally slamming The Matrix: Revolutions.
And a couple of days ago, talking to a friend about HBO's Carnivale, he called it pretentious. When he said that, I replied with, "Well, then this conversation's over because now we're dealing with a matter of taste. " Admittedly, I may be more forgiving of some things than his overly-critical personality, but I was kind of offended to have that word levied at a show that I truly, truly love. He hasn't been to Revolutions yet, but I'm curious to see if he finds that to be all bluster and no blow too.
So this gets me thinking about my work (which he -- like others -- also hates), and it gets me thinking that one shouldn't get caught up in matters of expectation, the "author" especially.
Revolutions suited me. I was expecting them to drop the ball in the end of this trilogy, but what I was exposed to was, IMO, truly brilliant. It strengthens the second film as well as ties in subtle ways to the first. My only real complaint about this one was the massive character dump in the beginning of the film. I'd have rathered some of these elements were introduced in Reloaded so that the transition into this film was a bit smoother, but by the ending I'd forgotten all that shit.
- SPOILERS - SPOILERS - SPOILERS - SPOILERS - SPOILERS - SPOILERS -
About the ending . . . maybe they could have shaved that last scene, but there is something very sweet about it, and, frankly, after the intensity of the last few scenes and the revelation of Trinity and Neo's collective fate, I was pretty open to it.
That'll happen when you're weeping.
It does leave a few things hanging, but that's the nature of the beast -- and I think what's interesting about this trilogy in general. It doesn't set out to make definitions, it sets out to raise some questions. And I really hate that I'm one of the people who fell for the somewhat simplified philosophic/theologic/esoteric conundrums presented by these films.
But I loved it, from end to end.
In this pretentious, untalented, semi-professional's opinion . . . best cinematic trilogy ever.
(yes, even over Star Wars, which is basically a glorified western, and LOTR which, though beautiful and technically brilliant, is based on a brilliant trilogy of books so, technically, not original -- The Matrix was devised for The Movies, so it's somewhat unique in that regard)
And a couple of days ago, talking to a friend about HBO's Carnivale, he called it pretentious. When he said that, I replied with, "Well, then this conversation's over because now we're dealing with a matter of taste. " Admittedly, I may be more forgiving of some things than his overly-critical personality, but I was kind of offended to have that word levied at a show that I truly, truly love. He hasn't been to Revolutions yet, but I'm curious to see if he finds that to be all bluster and no blow too.
So this gets me thinking about my work (which he -- like others -- also hates), and it gets me thinking that one shouldn't get caught up in matters of expectation, the "author" especially.
Revolutions suited me. I was expecting them to drop the ball in the end of this trilogy, but what I was exposed to was, IMO, truly brilliant. It strengthens the second film as well as ties in subtle ways to the first. My only real complaint about this one was the massive character dump in the beginning of the film. I'd have rathered some of these elements were introduced in Reloaded so that the transition into this film was a bit smoother, but by the ending I'd forgotten all that shit.
- SPOILERS - SPOILERS - SPOILERS - SPOILERS - SPOILERS - SPOILERS -
About the ending . . . maybe they could have shaved that last scene, but there is something very sweet about it, and, frankly, after the intensity of the last few scenes and the revelation of Trinity and Neo's collective fate, I was pretty open to it.
That'll happen when you're weeping.
It does leave a few things hanging, but that's the nature of the beast -- and I think what's interesting about this trilogy in general. It doesn't set out to make definitions, it sets out to raise some questions. And I really hate that I'm one of the people who fell for the somewhat simplified philosophic/theologic/esoteric conundrums presented by these films.
But I loved it, from end to end.
In this pretentious, untalented, semi-professional's opinion . . . best cinematic trilogy ever.
(yes, even over Star Wars, which is basically a glorified western, and LOTR which, though beautiful and technically brilliant, is based on a brilliant trilogy of books so, technically, not original -- The Matrix was devised for The Movies, so it's somewhat unique in that regard)
-
-
confused
-
impressed