 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 09:56:07 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> I *did* like the animated clip about the haunted house in the matrix,
> tho.
That was good. They could've also done a lot more with the idea of
wraiths, vampyres, and other such creatures in the films than they did.
The wraith brothers were cool, made for really interesting fight
sequences.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 10:51:43 -0400, clipka wrote:
> The second movie cluttered the matrix universe with a host of freaks,
> twists and subplots. No real message in sight. No clear source it cited
> from - except the very cliches generated in popular culture by first
> movie. In short: It sucked.
One thing that came out in the second film that I thought was good was
that Morpheus was really just another guy. In the first film, there was
an almost godlike quality in the character and his followers.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> > Badly drawn my ass. You just simply can't tell apart actors from CG doubles
> > from the rendering itself.
>
> Um... have you *seen* the fight scene? Some of the stuff in HalfLife 2
> is better rendered than that! :-P
That's exactly what I'm talking about, though you jest.
> > It's the animation, when they start moving, that
> > makes you clearly see that no human being would ever be able to move that way,
>
> Actually, I thought the movement was pretty much spot on. It's the odd
> lighting and the flat texturing that tears it.
I see no odd lighting other than the intended stylized green and blueish
photography. I see no flat texturing, I mean: you can spot the digital
double's bumpy details on skin or cloth!
But then again, you think the movement of walking above lots of Smiths or
rolling to your back while swinging a pole is spot on...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
> > Also, people often seem to decide beforehand whether they're going to like a
> > movie or not, which is a bewildering feat of doublethink to me.
>
> I usually try to expect the movies to suck. That way, when they're merely
> average, it was fun to watch them. :-)
Yup, that'll work too... although if I expect a movie to suck too much, I won't
want to go see it ;-)
> Another problem is that they weren't really as surprising. The first movie
> explored a fascinating idea with lots of possibilities. The other two simply
> continued on. IMO.
Agreed.
> IME, when a first movie is good, the second movie sucks because they put in
> all the parts they thought made the first movie unique instead of all the
> parts that made it *good*, and by the third movie they've figured out why
> the second bombed. With a few notable exceptions, of course.
Empire Strikes Back being a very notable exception!
Oh yeah, and I'm with you on the Pirates films. The first (as always) remains
the best standalone movie, but I loved the others too. Oh, I know Will and Liz
were poorly-written simpering characters, but I really liked the way everyone
was genuinely out for themselves, and watching their goals and actions move
around whenever something changed was great. I could watch more Pirates sequels
with great enjoyment!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Badly drawn my ass. You just simply can't tell apart actors from CG doubles
> from the rendering itself. It's the animation, when they start moving, that
> makes you clearly see that no human being would ever be able to move that way,
> and thus, spell FAKE all over it. Rendering itself is top-notch.
Well, that fight was edited so snappily that you can't really spot shortcomings
in the animation. I recall that there are a couple of split seconds where Neo's
digital stuntman looks particularly flat and artificial. But yeah, I'd say most
of the time the CG was superb.
> Super punch?
> Looks truly like Smith's face until it deforms beyond what the actor would take
> for any money whatsoever...
Haha, although that bit does annoy me for another reason - the slo-mo raindrops
are all long stringy blobs, not the perfect spheres they should be (yeah I
know, it's the matrix, it's coded differently to reality, yadda yadda ;-) )
> BTW, pointless or not and despite the overly hysterical finish, the sequels were
> quite good. Here's my quick summary:
>
> Matrix > Reloaded > Revolutions
Hey, you just listed them in the order you saw them! Put some thought into it,
man! ;-) I do like the dock battle in the third film tho. And there's that
moment of poetic beauty when the ship breaks through the clouds on that
parabolic arc...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Yup, that'll work too... although if I expect a movie to suck too much, I won't
> want to go see it ;-)
True. I expected both Hitchcock and Wanted to be lame, but I quite enjoyed
both. They were both much better than the general populace said they were,
methinks, probably because of the expectations like Warp talks about.
On the other hand, I was gravely disappointed in Beetlejuice. A fabulous
concept completely ignored in favor of making it slapstick. "I'm glad
someone else took the idea and did it right," he said, avoiding spoilers.
> Oh yeah, and I'm with you on the Pirates films.
I wonder if you could count "Haunted House" (Eddie Murphy) as a sequel to
the first Pirates film. Sort of "take the idea of turning a ride into a
comedy movie" sequel that failed because it wasn't the ride that made people
like Pirates.
Does anyone remember the *old* Pirates ride in disneyworld, with the talking
skeletons and such? They really toned it down, I fear.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Haha, although that bit does annoy me for another reason - the slo-mo raindrops
> are all long stringy blobs, not the perfect spheres they should be
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiversity/en/e/eb/RaindropShape.jpg
Actually, raindrops falling look a lot like bubbles rising. They're not
round, their little upside-down cups.
> I do like the dock battle in the third film tho.
I was the only person in the theatre that laughed when the Oracle's sidekick
opened the door with the special key the first time. Then about another 10%
of the audience laughed when Neo said "These are back doors, aren't they?"
We must have had an unusually low concentration of geeks that day.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> The wraith brothers were cool, made for really interesting fight
> sequences.
Yes. And they were also excellent because of their personalities. You could
just see these invincible immortal loners with no connection to the rest of
the world, just drifting along, killing people because it didn't really
matter to them...
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> round, their little upside-down cups.
round, they're little upside-down cups. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
> > Yup, that'll work too... although if I expect a movie to suck too much, I won't
> > want to go see it ;-)
>
> True. I expected both Hitchcock and Wanted to be lame, but I quite enjoyed
> both.
Um, do you mean Hancock or Hitch? Or have I just missed a film called Hitchcock
;-)
I enjoyed Wanted very much - best-ever use of slow-mo keyboards... :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
