4 ms·
I like this take. I actually really enjoyed the first ~half of the movie, even laughed out loud a couple of times (esp the 'warner bros will make the game with
by geenew 5y ago
I like this take.
I actually really enjoyed the first ~half of the movie, even laughed out loud a couple of times (esp the 'warner bros will make the game with or without us so we'd better just take on the job').
The second half of action-soup was, for me at least, boring and as far as I can tell nonsensical.
I think the movie would have done a lot better without trying to redo any of the gunplay/holodeck-type fantasy, and instead stuck to the more grounded storyline from the first half.
At this point we need commentary in the popular culture on reboots, there is enough grist in that mill for 2 hours at least.
- sam0x17 5y agoI should add, though, I did like the interesting tidbits on what happened with Zion, how the machines went to war with _each other_, and how a new Zion (I forget the name) was formed, but instead allying with exiled machines. I was fascinated and wanted to know more about that "blue" faction and the "red" faction of robots that are seen briefly fighting each other. That glimpse into the lore was worth it for me. This is also just a really good evolution from the central conflict of the first three films which is basically like "technology = bad, but we need it". This film shows us "technology can be bad, but we can work together with it to build something beautiful and brighter". Really good evolution there. I think what ultimately sank the movie for a lot of fans was the Agent Smith actor was replaced. Too bad.
- geenew 5y agoAgreed, the robots fighting each other aspect was interesting, I perked up at that. In retrospect, it's a sensible prediction of how artificial consciousnesses would behave given resource constraints. It's a question that's ignored in the single-hive-mind view from so many other dystopian techno-futures.