The Matrix 4 Resurrection

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Yamer

I'm going to catch flak for this, but I don't understand the fawning over Mad Max: Fury Road. Excellent cinematography, and that's about it.

It was just...weird. I've never watched the originals, so maybe it was the fact it was nostalgia and a mastery of the original concept?

I liked Fury Rd but it was just a remake of Mad Max 2 and frankly for all the extra money spent on it and the visuals, wasn't as good

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

It's astonishingly good for a present day sci-fi film. And equally painfully underappreciated.

Rarely are movies these days made with the level of detail, love and execution as BR2049 was.

I get literal chills from scenes in that film, between the visuals and script. Pretty sure nothing made in the last decade elicits that reaction from me.

I didn't think it was possible for a human to be as attractive as Ana de Armas was in that. It was a brilliant idea to make her a hologram

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

I didn't think it was possible for a human to be as attractive as Ana de Armas was in that. It was a brilliant idea to make her a hologram

Have to agree. Having those at home would be a quick way to making wives obsolete.

The sets and sound design were also nearly flawless. The locations felt convincingly real to the senses.

[badradio]

Doogie Howser… I’ll pass…

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by badradio

Doogie Howser… I’ll pass…

Because of a reportedly small supporting role in the film?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Because of a reportedly small supporting role in the film?

Neil Patrick Harris? I really like him. I hope he has a good role.

Honestly, my trepidations with this film stem from the writing and direction.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Because of a reportedly small supporting role in the film?

I also boycott films based on actor’s earliest tv roles. It’s why I refuse to watch Die Hard because Bruce Willis was in Moonlighting.

[badradio]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Because of a reportedly small supporting role in the film?

Having a known entity fill a minor supportive role is usually a telltale sign the movie isn’t going to be very good. Not a knock on NPH, but a knock on casting/decision making, just my opinion, there are always outliers of courses and maybe this is one.

[djsFlames]

So movies with big names in small roles tend to be bad? Interesting, never heard of that one before.

Net sure is full of prophets that seem to know how things are going to shake out before they do.

I wonder what it's like to experience so little suspense or uncertainty in life.

[badradio]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

So movies with big names in small roles tend to be bad? Interesting, never heard of that one before.

Net sure is full of prophets that seem to know how things are going to shake out before they do.

I wonder what it's like to experience so little suspense or uncertainty in life.

Yes actually it happens a lot. They distract the audience with a known name in a bit part from poor fundamentals. We will see won’t we? Now I have to watch it.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

It’s true. Al Pacino had a bit part in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and it is widely regarded as one of the worst movies ever made.

Matt Damon in Interstellar.

Also, most of the roles in Saving Private Ryan, terrible flop of a movie full of famous people to distract the audience.

Dame Judy Dench was only in Shakespeare in Love for like 6 minutes and that movie definitely didn’t win any Oscars.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I also boycott films based on actor’s earliest tv roles. It’s why I refuse to watch Die Hard because Bruce Willis was in Moonlighting.

The movie makes even more sense if you think that Cybil Shepard hired the terrorists.