"Hackers, game, and crypto developers will enjoy “Resurrections” immensely. The general audience might have a more tepid reaction, since one has to be a coder to really get all the references and insider humor."
The script has some very interesting ideas and a really entertaining anger toward its own existence. The actual filmmaking however is really cheap and poorly done. Bad editing, bad shots, bad fight choreography.
Is it bad or is it just different from original Matrix and on a higher resolution/framerate? The cinematography reminded me of Jupiter Ascending which wasn't bad imo.
It's not just these things. The dialogue is so poorly written one wonders if the accusations surrounding the first Matrix lifting the script from another screenwriter were true. [1]
Who thinks writing in a MILF joke is an appropriate follow-up to such a classic (and classy) film?
I watched it and the best review I read about the movie was “this could have been an email”.
There are no fight scenes like in the previous matrix, the soundtrack is also lacking. Just know this before watching the movie. This is the last time I’ll watch one of her movies personally. This is dragon ball evolution all over again, but with one of the original director. It makes no sense.
I'm happy SOMEONE is enjoying it. Because it... christ it was awful. I had no expectations for it, and it felt like some big budget fan fiction tripe. Almost a parody.
But I've come to understand that whether you enjoyed it or not comes down to what you decided the film was about, early on.
For me, I assumed it was all in Neo's head. Especially the bits outside the Matrix. So I didn't bother investing in or even taking seriously any of it, expecting it all to crumble around as Thomas Anderson's fantasy life collapses on him by the end.
But uh... then the credits rolled, and I realized all that nonsense was "real". Huh.
Haven't seen it but other movies or shows like the witcher, I liked a lot but apparently a bunch of internet people are about to start a revolution over how horrible they say it was. Same with the recent Star wars movies, they were all great for me except the one about Solo. I've learned to remind myself that my experience and taste can and will be different than the crowd. I watched seasons of shows in great enjoyment and then apparently I was not supposed to! Don't let others' reviews and opinions set your expectations, people tend to see what they're looking for.
One review put it nicely. It's better than the sequels...
They were so awful. This, I didn't need it. I expected the worst. It exceeded my expectations and was reasonably entertaining. The two other sequels were awful.
The second film will probably stand forever as one of the most monumental achievements in practical action and stunt cinematography. Look into the making of the highway chase scene, it's unbelievable and what they did building an entire highway for all the stunts. Kind of like the real chariot race in the 50's version of Ben Hur, there are some movies that do something so spectacular it will never be done again.
It was… fine. There’s some great shots and action, and some interesting new ideas in there somewhere. But it does some meta level self aware bullshit that doesn’t work. Also, thinking back on it, there really aren’t many stakes to feel threatened by. And it leans way too much on the original trilogy. Like, there’s so much footage from the old ones… There’s a decent movie in there somewhere, I think. But they needed someone else not involved in the originals to wrangle the screenplay.
> Recursive functions and algorithms are a cornerstone of computer science, that is simply how computers work.
No, not at all.
> What is recursion? It simply means taking something you have, running it again, but running in such a way that it gets slightly better next run.
What in the...
> Even the word “Resurrections” sounds a bit like “Recursion” which might be a coincidence, yet knowing Lana’s unparalleled talent of creating meta everywhere, makes me wonder.
My eyes rolled back so hard that I'm now legally blind.
Thank you! I will try that and see how that goes. :)
Edit: I got a stack overflow! Does that mean I should download more RAM, or what am I doing wrong?!
---
But seriously, I think the author is referring to evolutionary algorithms. It does not make much sense regardless. Smith and Trinity are crucial to account for, but the author left them out completely.
It better be perfect though!!! At what point can I tell that it is in the most perfect state? If we are talking about infinities, is there a point where we can say that it is in a perfect state and it cannot get any more perfect? Is there such a thing as perfect state?
For example:
> It simply means taking something you have, running it again, but running in such a way that it gets slightly better next run.
So... is there an end of this? Physically speaking, there is a limit, yeah, but can we reach the most perfect state where it cannot get any better?
> is there a point where we can say that it is in a perfect state
I suspect it's asymptotical. You'll need to determine at which point it's close enough to perfection to stop improving, or just let it rip to infinity (and never benefit from it, probably).
Yeah, fair enough. I am interested in cases where we do not know what we are looking for exactly, or rather, we do not know exactly what "perfect" is. When we can define the state we want perfectly, then we have an easy job, but what if we cannot?
shrug I really liked it. It felt like Lana Wachowski re-imagining what they really wanted to do for the first movie, but now 20 years wiser and more experienced. I loved how it brought in more color--some scenes almost reminded me of Speed Racer with all the hues.
You’re not the only one. It’s already my favorite. It’s like the first, but taken a little more seriously. More conventionally dramatic. Less comic booky. The way I wanted the Matrix movies to be treated all along.
I had really cynical expectations for this film, as someone who saw the original in theaters, loathed the sequels and other related media, and even have The Matrix DVD as my first purchase (still in my order history!) from Amazon in 1999, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
First matrix movie i turned off half way through. I stopped listening to the dialogue after 10 minutes because it was so dreadful but I had hopes that it was just made intentionally bad to make a point or something.
It wasn't. This is the best they could do and it's awful.
Problem with this movie is that is it was forced. According to one interview with the director, they said that a family loss prompt them to write some story as a coping mechanism, which ended up being adapted to a studio forced cash grab Matrix movie. So what a natural lack of effort and inspiration, what was great about the first 3 - the dread, sense of threat, etc... is simply gone.
Having said that, i found it mostly enjoyable and a good resolution to Neo's arc. Don't think i will repeat viewing.
Mmm, so... Crazy amount of people sitting down and talking for an action movie, almost like a black and white French film. Anyway... I remember how people said at the time how the previous sequels 'Matrix Revolutions' and 'Matrix reloaded' were not as good as the original. 'Resurrection' is like a sequel to them...
It’s like when your streaming video misses an I-frame and each subsequent frame distorts the one before it (aka game of telephone). I didn’t like it but fairly eager to give it another chance at some point.
I thought the movie was entertaining.. but also trash and way too long.
[Spoilers]
Going in, the bar was pretty low given the reception of the 2nd and 3rd movies. I went in to this thinking it would be their "star wars ep 7", and it kind of was. Except comparing apples to apples, Ep 7 was much better than this, which isnt saying much. I love Keanu but his acting just isn't that good. He's the same character as in the John Wick series. The writing is a lazy attempt to be meta and deep. They make direct self references to Warner Brothers forcing them to reboot. "Stories never really end, we keep telling the same ones again and again but with different characters". Okay. There are some hot takes about the zeitgeist, how the new matrix manipulates our feelings instead of our facts (hint Twitter and facebook).
So yeah, the first 30 mins are a slog, but then the action kicks in and the action scenes are pretty fun.
The ending is what you'd expect, the good guys escape the matrix - again. As for humans vs machines, to be continued.
Hopefully the sequels don't further mirror the star wars reboots.
I really enjoyed it, it was very self-aware and meta, even breaking the fourth wall. It could have been a bit deeper, but it still gives a lot to think about (existence and such)
The article conveniently forgot to mention Trinity and Smith, because suddenly with them in the equation everything about recursion falls apart. No, it has nothing to do with recursion[1]. There is some sort of "iteration" in the movie somewhere, but yeah, nope.
You know what the movie is about? Nothing, but some low quality romance between Neo and Trinity. I wish I could read more into it, but nope.
[1] His definition of recursion is wrong as well, and still does not fit... at all.
67 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 82.0 ms ] threadIs it bad or is it just different from original Matrix and on a higher resolution/framerate? The cinematography reminded me of Jupiter Ascending which wasn't bad imo.
Who thinks writing in a MILF joke is an appropriate follow-up to such a classic (and classy) film?
[1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sophia-stewart-matrix-laws...
Keanu Reeves and Carie-Anne Moss have a nice 30 minute interview on YouTube about making the sequel. I recommend the interview.
There are no fight scenes like in the previous matrix, the soundtrack is also lacking. Just know this before watching the movie. This is the last time I’ll watch one of her movies personally. This is dragon ball evolution all over again, but with one of the original director. It makes no sense.
But I've come to understand that whether you enjoyed it or not comes down to what you decided the film was about, early on.
For me, I assumed it was all in Neo's head. Especially the bits outside the Matrix. So I didn't bother investing in or even taking seriously any of it, expecting it all to crumble around as Thomas Anderson's fantasy life collapses on him by the end.
But uh... then the credits rolled, and I realized all that nonsense was "real". Huh.
Since I had no idea what the plot was I didn't form many future expectations. I think the dialog won't hold up well long term
They were so awful. This, I didn't need it. I expected the worst. It exceeded my expectations and was reasonably entertaining. The two other sequels were awful.
> Recursive functions and algorithms are a cornerstone of computer science, that is simply how computers work.
No, not at all.
> What is recursion? It simply means taking something you have, running it again, but running in such a way that it gets slightly better next run.
What in the...
> Even the word “Resurrections” sounds a bit like “Recursion” which might be a coincidence, yet knowing Lana’s unparalleled talent of creating meta everywhere, makes me wonder.
My eyes rolled back so hard that I'm now legally blind.
I wish.
Edit: I got a stack overflow! Does that mean I should download more RAM, or what am I doing wrong?!
---
But seriously, I think the author is referring to evolutionary algorithms. It does not make much sense regardless. Smith and Trinity are crucial to account for, but the author left them out completely.
Not using a a language implementation with tail call optimization, or recursing outside of tail position, probably.
For example:
> It simply means taking something you have, running it again, but running in such a way that it gets slightly better next run.
So... is there an end of this? Physically speaking, there is a limit, yeah, but can we reach the most perfect state where it cannot get any better?
I suspect it's asymptotical. You'll need to determine at which point it's close enough to perfection to stop improving, or just let it rip to infinity (and never benefit from it, probably).
wait, what?
That was what was so childish about 2 and 3, and that childishness remained here. The role-swapping in service of allegory was annoying, as well.
It wasn't. This is the best they could do and it's awful.
Having said that, i found it mostly enjoyable and a good resolution to Neo's arc. Don't think i will repeat viewing.
[Spoilers]
Going in, the bar was pretty low given the reception of the 2nd and 3rd movies. I went in to this thinking it would be their "star wars ep 7", and it kind of was. Except comparing apples to apples, Ep 7 was much better than this, which isnt saying much. I love Keanu but his acting just isn't that good. He's the same character as in the John Wick series. The writing is a lazy attempt to be meta and deep. They make direct self references to Warner Brothers forcing them to reboot. "Stories never really end, we keep telling the same ones again and again but with different characters". Okay. There are some hot takes about the zeitgeist, how the new matrix manipulates our feelings instead of our facts (hint Twitter and facebook).
So yeah, the first 30 mins are a slog, but then the action kicks in and the action scenes are pretty fun.
The ending is what you'd expect, the good guys escape the matrix - again. As for humans vs machines, to be continued.
Hopefully the sequels don't further mirror the star wars reboots.
You know what the movie is about? Nothing, but some low quality romance between Neo and Trinity. I wish I could read more into it, but nope.
[1] His definition of recursion is wrong as well, and still does not fit... at all.