I, Robot

K

Kicker15

Limit Breaker
Adventurer
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
406
Location
Indiana / Kentucky
Website
www.ebaumsworld.com
has anyone gone and seen that movie. If so what did you think. Personally, I thought it was freakin cool...I was a little surprised at the end when the "bad guy" was revealed. :shock:

"discuss"
-----Mike Meyers (SNL)
 
Am I the only one who thinks the previews for this movie make it look like it should be called "When Crash Test Dummies Attack!" (next on Fox)? :shock:

:roll:
Just me, then...
 
hahahahaha
i thought it was a pretty good movie too!!
i liked the story behind Spooners (Will Smith) prejudice against robots.....i thought it was pretty clevor for some reason.
ya my bf is a computer network engineer so he knows about all that comp stuff and figured out who the "bad guy" was.......which makes sense when u see it from his pt of view.....
but ya i was surprised too.......

its a great movie that u all should check out! ^_~
 
I havent seen it yet.. almost forgot it was coming out already.

What sucks is that out of all my friends im the only one who looks at the previews and thinks it looks cool. They dont want to see it, so I guess im going this one alone. :/
 
(If anyone's actually read Asimov...)

The movie is an amalgamation of sci-fi; they threw a whole bunch of ideas from different stories together. In the original series there were no robots in Chicago -- they were mining in space; and the good doctor was still alive. I'm not bashing the movie, though. It's just kind of misleading, in that it's just borrowing Asimov's name.

In short: best Matrix movie ever.

(Second to The Matrix, but definitely superior to Reloaded and Revolutions.)

Seriously. The movie seemed more Matrix than I, Robot.
 
I loved the sequels.
I don't really understand how someone can like the first and bash the 2nd and 3rd.

I Robot was a cool movie though. I saw it last Friday or Saturday. Will Smith is always entertaining.
 
i liked the movie even though i dont like will smith, not to mention i went in with the idea i was gonna hate the movie..i know youre gonna ask why i watched movie if i thought i was gonna hate it...so ill go ahead and answer "I had to" i had no choice, its my job to watch moies every thursday...which can be great to get paid to watch good movies..and sometimes it isnt even worth getting paid for.... (i.e) cabin fever or extreme ops....
and yes i too was suprised by who the bad "guy" was :shock:
 
Sneakypants said:
I don't really understand how someone can like the first and bash the 2nd and 3rd.
Click to expand...

Simple.

-Mind, this is only my opinion.-

The original Matrix was a pure movie. It elevated media theory to a whole new level, and the whole thing oozed with style. It was fresh.

Reloaded just brought back everything from the first, with nothing new. While that isn't a bad thing, it doesn't make it a good movie. The focus of the metaplot moved away from shedding light on perception/reality to a human/machine survival struggle. I'm sorry if it seems a little cliche. Not to mention Ford Motor Company was virtually gloating over being able to feature their Cadillacs in the movie. Reloaded was nothing like the original. It became an adventure. With a lot of money. The only good scene was the monologue of the Architect.

Revolutions tried to do something... but didn't, because it didn't know what it was doing. By this point they decided to explain everything. Okay, fine. But everything by now had strayed so far from the original -- it really wasn't the same anymore. Seriously -- go watch the original Matrix, and then rewatch Revolutions. See if Revolutions really resolves the original. Or if they've copped out. And really. The Pakistani man on the train acts better than Keanu Reeves...

The problem with sequels is always that you have to find bigger, better things. And the problem with finales is that it ought to resolve the plot. And they didn't. The first one was art. The following two were commercial reproductions. Ask Rauschenberg for the difference.
 
That and when I saw the 3rd matrix I felt like I was watching Dragon Ball Z....God I hate that show!!! :evil:
 
Fogel said:
Sneakypants said:
I don't really understand how someone can like the first and bash the 2nd and 3rd.
Click to expand...

Simple.

-Mind, this is only my opinion.-

The original Matrix was a pure movie. It elevated media theory to a whole new level, and the whole thing oozed with style. It was fresh.

Reloaded just brought back everything from the first, with nothing new. While that isn't a bad thing, it doesn't make it a good movie...
Click to expand...

So to make a good movie, one must change the way that society thinks?
I think this is too lofty.

I agree with you that the 1st Matrix blew people's minds and introduced the concept. However, once introduced to the concept and given time to digest it, society goes to the next movie and find that Neo is now living up to the powers we are told to expect he will be capable of.

I agree that there was a certain something the first had that the others did not. I would also say the the 2nd and 3rd had things that the first did not.

This is not any different than X-Men and X-2 or Spiderman and Spiderman 2, etc...The first movie is designed to give background, concept and character development. While the following releases can just cut to the chase. It takes some of the appeal away somehow because you don't get to use your imagination as much...That's why you hear people frequently say they liked the book better than the movie.

With something like the matrix that introduced such a profound theory to society, but bundled fo rthe masses to handle, just the idea of the matrix is more interesting than watching Neo bounce around its parameters on screen to a specific script.

That said, I can't say the first was the best...Nor can I say any of the others are on top. Truth is, I like them each differently and fairly equally.

Just my opinion though. Not trying to flame, but just explaining my point a bit further.
 
Sneakypants said:
So to make a good movie, one must change the way that society thinks?
I think this is too lofty.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah. I would agree here. I don't think every single movie ought to be profound to be "good." But I think it should achieve its purpose. That's the big thing: and the original vision of the Matrix was to be revolutionary -- they set out to change the way we thought about things. And it was pulled off brilliantly. My biggest complaint with the other two was that they had deviated so much from what they had... they expanded the movie from something they had such a firm grasp on, and finally stretched the whole thing too thin. It became a mess.

Which kind of ties into this:
Sneakypants said:
This is not any different than X-Men and X-2 or Spiderman and Spiderman 2, etc...
Click to expand...

To the contrary, I think Spider-Man and X-Men never expect anything more of themselves than as a solid action romp. And I never feel any guilt in liking those movies just for action's sake; but that was their purpose. They might tweak the original comic book storylines to make it more movie/120-page-script friendly, but they never turn it into something more than it should be. And that's why Spider-Man and X-Men have been so successful, unlike most other comic-books-turned-movie. They pull it off gracefully.

Remember Batman? Think about the first two. And then think about the rest. That's the kind of degradation in a series I'm talking about. Or -gasp- Star Wars. God forbid Lucas should pen his own scripts... there was a reason the original three were successful -- other people wrote them. (But that's a flame for another day.)

Here's to healthy discussion.
 
I think they did it very well also, but I agree in some sense with Fogel too.
I think the reason the 2nd and 3rd Matrix weren't blowing our minds is because that wouldn't be as marketable or at least understood by the masses. Rather than create a total mindfuck, which I would have enjoyed, the Wachowski's opted to keep it on the same plane of existence as your average Joe.
Unfortunately, the thinkers were left saying, "The special effects were good, but what happened?"
 
well said kicker.

when it comes to films, i look at them only 1 way, was i entertained?
if the answer was yes, then i thought it was a good film.

I agree with the comment on will smith playing himself. alot of actors are like that. i.e. john wayne. he started it all. hes considered such a legend, yet he
couldnt act his way out of a paper bag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top