[quote=“alk0, post:39, topic:3405”]Let me steal your idea Stanton:
Not a fan of that movie either, a series of overblown clichés, but ‘2’ is really harsh. I thought it at least looked good (especially Carrie-Ann Moss)
Never bothered with any of the sequels, so maybe my ‘6’ was a bit too lenient
Matrix is a great action movie. Stylish and intelligent. With some flaws though.
In the sequels it all gets down the river. The ending of #3 is laughable.
[quote=“Stanton, post:42, topic:3405”]Matrix is a great action movie. Stylish and intelligent. With some flaws though.
In the sequels it all gets down the river. The ending of #3 is laughable.[/quote]
I’ve only seen some scenes from part 2 (or maybe three): a chase scene with one of those creatures jumping from car to car, destroying them. Looked rather silly. The finale of the first movie was okay though, quite spectacular.
This car chase in part 2 was a fantastic action scene, but it began to rely too much on that messiah stuff of the story, and it became simpler and simpler, and in part 3 all that was innovative in part 1 turned into pathetic awfulness.
Matrix is a movie that, in my opinion, is one of the few responsible for ruining the modern mainstream cinema. I don’t see no intelligence in it, anything that looks intelligent is there by accident I think. It’s quite obvious when you look at the 2nd part. I don’t like the way it looks and CGI action scenes are something I would never call ‘great’. Sorry, but I simply hate this movie.
Matrix is ok for a watch, but one film which is vastly overated for me.
It is not the CGI which makes action scenes great, and it were never any kind of older FX which made older action scenes great, it is now and it was before always the creativity in the use of the film language which made the great action scenes so amazing. Special Effects of any kind only help to make them look better than they looked before, also they may help to create perspectives or camera movements which were before impossible.
When the then newest Special Effects are not new any more, and are replaced by the next big thing which technology makes possible, then I still can enjoy great action scenes from any decade for their imagination when the effects look already more or less dated.
CGI is for me nothing to complain about. I enjoy modern action scenes. Most are principally done very well, and that has nothing to do with CGI. But with the use of the editing and the camera.
[quote=“Stanton, post:47, topic:3405”]It is not the CGI which makes action scenes great, and it were never any kind of older FX which made older action scenes great, it is now and it was before always the creativity in the use of the film language which made the great action scenes so amazing. Special Effects of any kind only help to make them look better than they looked before, also they may help to create perspectives or camera movements which were before impossible.
When the then newest Special Effects are not new any more, and are replaced by the next big thing which technology makes possible, then I still can enjoy great action scenes from any decade for their imagination when the effects look already more or less dated.
CGI is for me nothing to complain about. I enjoy modern action scenes. Most are principally done very well, and that has nothing to do with CGI. But with the use of the editing and the camera.[/quote]
Probably, but many directors show a tendency to overuse CGI, it’s like a new toy they’re very fond of and can’t stop playing with (a bit like the use of slow-motion and spurting blood after Bonnie & Clyde and The Wild Bunch had made it popular). And I don’t like movies that rely too much on CGI (like I don’t like movies that rely too much on special effects in general). In some cases the CGI or SFX are very functional, Gravity is an excellent example, but often they’re only show-off, irritating, like in the Conan remake.
I watched Pompeii the other day. Not a great film, but the CGI were functional, used to good effect (to create the eruption of Mount Vesuvius and the destruction of the city)
Yeah, but films always overused the then new effects. So, nothing new in that department too.
I generally don’t care much for SFX dominated films too. Mostly these films suffer from too much superficial effects and too less dramatic ideas.
The Matrix - Absolutely superb. The effects (should) exist solely to serve the story and, in this case, they do. Excellently.
The Matrix Reloaded - As dependent as it is on the third film, whether or not this turned out to be good or bad largely relied, for me, on how The Matrix Revolutions answered the many questions it was posing. Unfortunately…
The Matrix Revolutions - Big bag of spunkwipe. Incoherent mess. The effects, used so well in the first movie, swamp everything here in lieu of any actual story. Never mind the plot, kids, look at the flashing lights! And lasers! And spaceships! BlamblamblamblamblamblamBLAM! Utter crap, and heartbreakingly disappointing.
IMO, of course.
[quote=“last.caress, post:1, topic:3405”]…As voted for by “Leading sci-fi experts, filmmakers, science fiction writers, film critics and scientists”, apparently.
Courtesy of Time Out London (LINK[url]http://www.timeout.com/london/film/the-100-best-sci-fi-movies-100-91[/url]):
What kind of a list is this?
Killdozer isn’t there.
Earth Vs. Flying Saucers is missing.
No Zardoz.
No Zombies Of The Stratosphere.
Kronos is a no-show.
It’s like a science-fiction list by people who only watch films that somebody told them to watch.
It’s all subjective of course, but Killdozer and Zombies of the Stratosphere are hardly the most obviously worthy candidates for a general list of the greatest 100 science fiction movies ever made, are they? Come on. If you honestly, truly believe that Killdozer is one of the 100 best sci-fi films ever made then of course that’s up to you and I’d champion your right to that belief with my last breath but it’s naive to think that that should be a general consensus, and/or that any list that omits it must have been drawn up by people that don’t know what they’re talking about. There will always be obvious-looking omissions from any list thanks to the subjectivity of these things (and, in this instance, because there are more than 100 great sci-fi films and they can’t all make the cut in a top 100) but it’s surely a wee bit previous to jump on this list for omitting Zombies of the Stratosphere, no? I absolutely love Starcrash, but I wouldn’t expect to see it on this list at all. Love it or not, It’s f*cking rubbish, let’s be honest! ;D
Talking of glorious f*cking rubbish, here’s The 20 most hilariously bad sci-fi movies as compiled by the same publication (LINK[url]http://www.timeout.com/london/film/worst-sci-fi-movies[/url]):
About a thousand glaring omissions from that top twenty! ;D
No question Earth vs Flying Saucers is better than many of the movies on that “top 100” list. Would be in my top 20
@4.The Island of Dr. Moreau(Frankenheimer, 1996
I like the film, it’s pretty good. Not rubbish in my view.
I know theres a fine line between Sci-Fi and horror sometimes (which I apparently dont seem to understand very well) but both Island of Dr Moreau’s and The Island of Lost Souls must be horror right? 
Three movies I absolutely adore in there: Starcrash, Robot Monster and Plan 9.
Plan 9 is really one of the most boring films I ever watched. A catastrophe in every respect.
Don’t think I ever watched it, not a good idea to fill this hole in my knowledge maybe.
In got myself a copy of The Island of Dr. Moreau (remake), also often mentioned among the worst ever. I’ve always avoided it, but know it mentioned again in this context on these pages, I decided to give it a chance. Soon more about it.
[quote=“scherpschutter, post:58, topic:3405”]Don’t think I ever watched it, not a good idea to fill this hole in my knowledge maybe.
In got myself a copy of The Island of Dr. Moreau (remake), also often mentioned among the worst ever. I’ve always avoided it, but know it mentioned again in this context on these pages, I decided to give it a chance. Soon more about it.[/quote]
Whoa, pickle!
Everyone says Plan 9’s no good = you decide there’s no need to look at it
Everyone says the Dr. Moreau remake’s no good = you’re inspired to give it a try??
Shenanigans! I’m calling Shenanigans!
Plan 9 from Outer Space (Full Movie)[url]- YouTube
Come on, Scherp! It’s right there! Don’t listen to Stanton, he’s been gorging on banana-and-crisps sandwiches all morning and now he’s full of melancholy and self-loathing. What else are you going to do with a sh*tty old Sunday? Best 78 minutes you’ll ever spend. Well, best 78 minutes you’ll spend today, anyway. 
Okay, I’ll give it a try after I have finished The Island of Dr. Moreau (not immediately after though)
Shenanigans?
Maybe, I don’t know what it is that makes me look one movie (that was pulvarized by critics) and not another one (that was equally pulvarized). All of a sudden I felt the urge the watch Dr. Moreau, because of the cast maybe, or the fact that it is based on the works of HG Wells, don’t know.
What have I done on this sh*tty sunday ? I have been writing:
[b]http://www.spaghetti-western.net/index.php/Two_Faces_of_the_Dollar_Review[/b]