Lets hope they don't ruin it.

I hope they come up with a new "Red Pill, Blue Pill" analogy; it's become much too cliched - and now, worryingly, no disturbingly, is perhaps more apt - just conjures up a mental picture of David Icke talking about his body computer matrix schtick on those Wembley waffle-athons.....shudder; Time for a mental shower.

I loved the first Matrix movie, because of the perfect mixture of action, drama, CGI, and some of the best fight choreography seen outside Asia. At no time did the CGI in the first film appear in any way over the top. It was used carefully, artistically. The second and third however, seemed,
although very cool in a comic book kind of way, to be over reliant on effects, and light on good directing and properly impactful fight scenes.

If the new stuff is nothing like the second and third matrix films, and a lot like the first, then they will be onto a winner in my opinion.

The plot will probably provide enough material for more Icke books.

Yes, the first one was so original & unique, and I found the next 2 a bit of a disappointment by comparison.

Gilly wrote:
These days that's always the case with follow-up movies. Invariably they're just cash generators.

But I will admit to be looking forward to the next Planet of the Apes flick.

Exactly.

I the only thing that makes the other two worth anything, is that they are an example of the way increased funding has just as much potential to ruin a good idea, as having too little money to execute the idea at all. It is a lesson which everyone from the movie industry, to governments, to companies all over the world, would do well to learn.

TrueBrit wrote:
Very True - Chucking vast amounts of money at a film is no guarantee for succes; even for Sci-Fi films.

Although it isn't Sci-Fi, a good example of a compelling film is "Winters Bone". Small budget, uncomplicated plot, no super stars but a film that is hard ignore the impact of. Like a book you don't want to end. It doesn't have to be about the money, for sure.

hugorune wrote:
Star wars 5 & 6 were great follow ups, thought the cgi on the newer ones spoiled it somewhat, but that & jar-jar binks aside, i love them all....although i am concerned what disney might do to it...now george lucas has had his turn

Wise Haven wrote:
Thanks for the head up on 'Winters Bone' Wisehaven.
In return I'd like to introduce the best low budget movie ever made (IMO )
I was so surprised to find it on youtube, so if you haven't seen it, watch/grab it while you can. This movie has stuck with me ever since I first saw it - it certainly makes you think. The producer encouraged everyone to torrent this movie and it spread like wildfire by word of mouth to become a cult classic. The Man from Earth

Cheers QS - I'l have a gander.

I go through periods of insomnia and make the fatal mistake of watching many unheard of and obscure films that start at 2/3 in the morning which is a mistake, of sorts...mebbe. Quite often, thank you serendipity, there are some real gem films which I wouldn't have normally come across - and end up brightening up an otherwise dismal period of UK TV, the 2 till 6 slot which is usually filled with gambling/shopping wrist slittingly bad dirge.
I've given up broadcast TV now - so it is good to get online movie recomendations or save up for those films that are worth buying on DVD.
F***uck the BBC crap. It just gives me apoplectic blood pressure.

So you do not like Sherlock?

I find that hard to digest!

TrueBrit wrote: I watch it online with my daughter who is a fan - watching online means I dont inadvertantly catch a glimpse, when flicking through the channels, of BBC half-witted presenters who masquerade as journalists and any glib chicanery from their supposed "news" or "current affairs" bollockery. 2 seconds of that nonsense is enough to escalate my blood pressure and I want to live long enough to say "I told you so" to all the fuckwits who can't tell their arse from their elbow when it comes to recognising real events or a fairy story.

I'm jaded, to say the least

I can understand that. I personally deal with the BBC in the same way I deal with everything else. Bullshit detectors at maximum .

I have learned to place all things of that nature in a separate section of my vision. I see them, but I do not consciously process them.

I liked the1st Matrix, because it was original, it had never been done before, and a lot of people were talking about the "System".
If they continue the Matrix Saga, it would become strictly commercial.

I hope they come out with something original, which I know the W. Brothers are quite capable of doing.

I remember after seeing the first matrix me and my son were discussing it for days - a real mind feast Loved it!
The other 2 - not so much. I really hope the new one is good, but not getting my hopes up.

TrueBrit wrote:
Second time tonight I've said this but the new Sherlock is nothing short of excellence! And Cumberbatch is the best Holmes ever bar none and perfectly matched with Freeman

It's a pleasure to watch.

Quality Street wrote:
After seeing the 1st Matrix movie, I was invited in Chile, to a University were students discussed the film, getting into philosophical lines of arguments, I still have some of the long written arguments, quite interesting. As they passed the microphone across the room, a student said he criticized the way Morpheous and everyone lived in the dirt, with hardly any higiene, and always the same food, he said their plans were interesting, but their way of living in the ship was too primitive. Others said living in a frugal manner was nothing wrong, the other way, was the Matrix.

Everyone gave their opinion, and after 2 hours, they still felt they needed to continue. They gave the address where this would continue, but unfortunately I could not go that day, things were very interesting, seeing this from different angles.

This is what is good, when something original comes around. Something that everyone has thought about, but Hollywood wasn't putting his finger on it.

I remember the 1st Matrix movie was shown in 2000 , if memory serves me right, but in 2001 came the "Terrorist" attack to the twin towers,
so the following 2nd and 3rd movie were more focused on humans vs machines and the Matrix, they didn't want their. Movie to seem like a "TERRORIST'S" movie. I wonder what the 2nd and 3rd Matrix part would have been if 9/11 had not happened then, but at a later date

Let's hope the Washaski Brothers do come up with something really original.

I'm just glad they aren't remaking their magnum opus, speed racer.

He's certainly the best Holmes since Jeremy Brett. It is hard to compare them however, because the setting is so different. I think what I would say, is that in doing such a fantastic job, the current cast and crew have really done a beautiful homage to those who came before, and I think that with a character like Holmes and a set of plots as iconic as those originally penned by Doyle, that is the best outcome one could hope for. The performances are polished, the directing fantastic, the writing is superb...

I will stop before I gush so hard that I start loosing blood I think!