Viewing Thread:
"The Matrix, Kill Bill and Movie Critic Idiots"

Isn't anyone else getting fed up with this seeming trend Movie Critics (and the self-important 'intellectuals' who follow the same stigma) have to slate the current blockbusters?

Movie Critics are just normal people like you and me. The only reason their opinion is published is because of their flair for writing and extensive knowledge of movies. That doesn't make their opinion any more credible than yours or mine though.

The original Matrix was hailed as a masterpiece by the critics, and the media rightly gave the film the recognition it deserved - widely recognised as a groundbreaking film both in concept and delivery, it took the movie industry by storm and both the public and critics lapped it up. Naturally when the second and third chapters in the Matrix saga were announced and went into production, everyone got very, very excited. When the films were actually released, though, things changed quite quickly.

"Hang on, we're intellectuals! We can't get caught up in this hype like those common people of the public! It's time for an about face!"

And then it seemed that Reloaded and Revolutions fell victim of critics slating films because it's 'arty' and 'cool' to do so. Surely the critic's credibility is far less important than the quality of the film? It IS possible for things to live up to their hype. Perhaps in these circumstances the critics got more carried away than Joe Public.

Let's look at Kill Bill also. It follows the same formula - massive bandwagon of hype, critics go against it. Because they 'dare' to rebel against the corporate monolith of Miramax advertising and the unprecedented reputation of Tarantino, their opinions are respected and trusted. Also once again, volume 2 gets far more stick than volume 1. Going against the grain because they can?

Is it really that uncool to just follow everyone else and enjoy a movie because it's good and entertaining? Unfortunately for the critics out there, this is one review-reader who has become severely disillusioned.

I like the fact that critics are able to slate whichever films they want to, and at the end of the day, it’s only their opinion, and the viewer can easily make up their own mind as to whether a film they’ve seen is good or bad.
I hated Kill Bill vol. 1, and stated so when it came out, and subsequently got a lot of people on here into bolshy red-faced tantrums, but at the end of the day it was only my opinion, so I could say whatever I wanted, but that doesn’t mean everyone has to take that as gospel, they make their own minds up.

I remember a heck of a lot of hype about the second and third Matrix films. The people at Hotdog Magazine (the best movie mag out there) were bursting with anticipation beforehand, doing preview after preview and salivating over the teaser footage, but upon seeing the film/s, they relayed their disappointment by slating the films quite a bit. They didn’t get caught up in hype, and I commend them for that.

If you didn’t have film critics who were ready and willing to slate films, then you’d end up in a world where every movie reviewer was Paul Ross, proclaiming every naff film to be “superb”, “terrific family fun” or “one of the best films of the year”.

And that is a world I wouldn’t like to see.

Presedenté Nash wrote:
> Mess wrote:
> And then it seemed that Reloaded and Revolutions fell victim of
> critics slating films because it's 'arty' and 'cool' to do so.
>
> But they were pants. Not compared to the original Matrix or anything.
> They just were.

Have to agree. I enjoyed Reloaded more than Revolutions, but it still was a chore compared to the first.

Mess wrote:
> And then it seemed that Reloaded and Revolutions fell victim of
> critics slating films because it's 'arty' and 'cool' to do so.

But they were pants. Not compared to the original Matrix or anything. They just were.

You have a point there, PB. The Matrix trilogy kinda works in the same way as the Star Wars 4,5,6 trilogy, except in the Star Wars ones I preferred the second movie whereas in the Matrix trilogy I prefer the first one.

I tend not to listen to the opinions of Critics anymore, just get real opinions off of real friends/contacts. That way you get an honest opiniion...

ßora† §agdiyeV wrote:
> You wouldn't read a book, and compare each chapter to another, saying
> 'chapter 1 kicked the crap out of chapter 3', would you? you'd judge
> the book as a whole - you may comment on particular set pieces or
> plot twists, but it's the full story that counts.
>

Well...people do say "I'm disappointed with that book, it started ok, but the ending was crap" or "the ending was ok, but it started slowly.." etc.

So, yes, you can compare them because in the end it's the same as comparing any two films in the same genre and if the first one is so good it sets a benchmark then you'd expect the same team to deliver an equally good film the second time around.

I mean, even if the second or third films aren't as good, they can still be recognised as being better than anything else. Look at the original Star Wars trilogy. The first film was great, Empire was considered even better and Jedi was good, better than most other films at the time, but not as good as the first two.

No-one (ok, hardly anyone) said Jedi was a bad film or 'didn't work', they gave it praise, but also said it wasn't as good as the first one. Now compare that to the Matrix trilogy...

Compared to Aliens, Alien Resurrection is rubbish. On its own merits, Alien Resurrection is aactually, for the most part, quite a good little film.

Alien 3 is just sh ite though.

I suppose there are some situations where you are forced to consider the films separately, such as the Alien quadrilogy, where each of them had a different director, a totally different storyline (well, sort of), different styles etc.

but even in these you've got to look at the story as a whole really, otherwise it may as well just be a bunch of flashing lights and loud noises in a large dark room.

Kill Bill is different though. The second film isn't is as good as the first, but mainly because half the character development and backstory should have been in the first one ie. it's fallible because of the decision to split it in two. Bad example, but I know what you mean.

what annoys me is when people say films are crap just because they weren't as good as the prequel(s).

if the matrix reloaded was released on its own, from scratch, and was judged on its own terms, without any prerequisite knowledge or benchmark, people would have creamed their pants.

I call it 'phantom menace syndrome', and I find it incredibly tedious.

If I say to someone "Hey, I watched Kill Bill volume 2 on friday", and they reply with "Is it as good as the first one?", I instantly lose interest in the conversation. Can a story/episode not be judged on its own merits? whether or not it is better than the other episodes should be something of an afterthought - how the film and storyline was put together, and how well it all came across, should be all you should consider.

For those of you who find that difficult, try and think of all of the matrix films as one big film. Now judge it as such. It dispenses with endless spiel and gets down to the heart of the matter - did you enjoy the story overall?

You wouldn't read a book, and compare each chapter to another, saying 'chapter 1 kicked the crap out of chapter 3', would you? you'd judge the book as a whole - you may comment on particular set pieces or plot twists, but it's the full story that counts.

Kill Bill is one particular 'film' that begs to be considered one long epic, I would imagine they just cut it in two, as the haemmorhoid(sp) clinic at the local hospital would soon fill up if people were forced to sit through nearly 6 hours of it. The second two matrix films were made in tandem too - so essentially they are just one long film.

so .... meh!

Mess wrote:
> Do you think it's far more credible to criticise films than show some
> humility and accept that they are good?

I think it's more credible to criticise a film you don't like than to tell everyone a film you don't like is good.

Boy, that even sounded logical for a minute...