So having seen X2 this past weekend, one of the things that struck me most is that people clapped - for the freaking Reloaded trailer.
Never had that happen before. Superficially it seems like Matrix is the one in terms of deepness, philosophy, certainly much more than the average action flick.
But then the very intrinsic themes of fear of the unknown, dealing with different people and others came to me after thinking more about X2.
It might have to wait for Reloaded to actually be released, but which movie involves more thinking and can be more appreciated with thoughtfullness?
I guess I totally missed what “deep philosophy” either movie contains. “X-Men” is a thinly veiled analogy for race and sexual orientation issues, which is a bit less relevant now than when the comics were first created in the 1960s.
And “The Matrix” being “deep”? That’s a new one on me. It seems to be the same “geek-turns-to-world-saving-hero” plot that drives classical comic-book fare. Read Neo’s dialogue and see if you still think this film is “deep.” Or read Slate.com’s analysis of the same question.
You can put any type of spin you wish on a movie provided enough analysis. Also, perhaps you never watched Matrix, but Neo wasn’ t the “wise” one, he was the pupil, Morphous was the teacher and I assure you his dialogue fit appropriately.
No, it isn’t. Rather, you don’t agree and pretend that you don’t understand why anyone would. As you immediately show, you know very well that some people consider The Matrix deep.
I’m not impressed. Do this with Morpheus’s dialogue and see what happens. Besides, any character from any movie has a dialogue that looks stupid when isolated.
God help us all if we start looking to The Matrix movies as “deep.” I’ve seen the first one twice, and I’ve tried my hardest to meet it halfway and accept it for what it is: a thoroughly competent action movie with some astounding effects shots and scenes & set-ups borrowed from some of the most entertaining genres (Hong Kong wire-fighting, sci-fi, cyberpunk) out there.
But it struck me as trying so aggressively to assert that it’s actually saying something of relevance, that it just pissed me off. By the time it ended, and Rage Against the Machine were yelling at me to “wake up,” I was annoyed enough to point out all the lameness of the whole thing: how its “homage” to Alice in Wonderland was ham-handed and over-done, and that in fact there wasn’t a single new idea in the movie. It was all copied from existing sci-fi stories (“What if robots took over the world?!?” never heard that one before) or stoner philosphy (“What if, like, we’re all dreaming, and what we think are dreams are really the reality? Dude!”)
But, hey, apparently some people are very touchy about the movie and its importance. So anyone who managed to actually get something out of the movie other than some flashy effects: more power to you.
And to answer the OP: I think the X-Men movies are “deeper,” if only because they don’t claim to answer the question of what it means to be alive, just ask the question why people have to be such dicks to each other and judge others based on things they can’t control.
No, it just never ocurred to me that someone might actually take this live-action cartoon seriously. I can see why some people (mostly teenagers and youngish Goths) might, however:
1 - Everyone dresses in black, even the good guys (except for one character, thrown in to make it interesting, who dresses all in white). This is a well-recognized symbol of great spiritual heft, because we all know that in the real world dressing entirely in black is so taboo no one ever does it.
2 - Lots and lots and lots of people get shot. This also happens in Van Damme movies, but we immediately know it’s a matter of great significance in “The Matrix,” because it happens in slow-motion.
3 - The bad guys are all interchangeable white men in power suits. The heroes are of mixed race and gender. With subtlety on par with a Wal-Mart commercial, we know the heroes must be bent on a truly significant Quest, since they are opposed solely by faceless white guys in suits and yuppie haircuts. And we all know what Great Evil such men represent.
4 - Apparently, it is part of the film’s “philosophy” that Trinity must always be wearing tight pants. But the guys always feel the need for black trenchcoats. Why? Apparently, style can’t give way just because they are wanted fugitives for whom it might be advisable to appear inconspicuous.
5 - Sunglasses. Sunglasses at night. Sunglasses indoors. When it’s raining outside. What’s the point, you ask? How should I know? It’s all way too profound for me.
6 - Everyone talks slowly, using vague analogies and nebulous terms. Only Really Smart people do that.
**
You need to watch more movies , my friend. A lot more, if you actually believe your last statement. Go watch “The Third Man” and listen to Harry Lime’s speech about cuckoo clocks. Or watch “Glengarry Glen Ross” and listen to Alec Baldwin rave about what it takes “to sell real estate!”
Movies like those expose The Matrix for just what it is: a well-made stylistic exercise, nothing more.
I think a lot of people have never been exposed to some of the ideas in the Matrix, or if they were it was not explained to them OVER and OVER again by a nice slow-talking man who used analogies so simple that Keanu Reeves could understand them. The idea that the world we live in is not real is an interesting one, but not very novel. I know it’s at least a couple of thousand years old (some Greek and a cave…).
Define “deep”. If “deep” means “it can’t also have any fun parts in it”, then neither movie fits the description. But if “deep” means “it can be fun, exciting, and thrilling while still having a message that’s well-portrayed”, then I imagine both movies fit… though X-men, in my opinion, is the better-presented of the two… although that could be due to, in my opinion, superior performances from the actors (except Halle Berry).
Because its message of tolerance is as relevant as ever today, and because it actually involves some moral ambiguity in its characters, I think I’d have to tip on the side of X-men… although I’d agree that neither film is amazingly Deep or Subtle. The great thing about X-Men, though, is that it doesn’t purport to be- it’s just a great action/adventure flick that happens to address some important issues in the process.
Bull. If this is true, why did you have the references on Neo’s dialogue and the Slate analysis handy? Why the premeditated six-point rave?
I’ve seen The Third Man (but not Glengarry Glen Ross). While that speech alone is meaningful (but so is Neo’s last monologue in the phone booth), I doubt that the character’s entire dialogue, out of context, would be very impressive. And even if it were, I’m sure that I could pick one character in The Third Man whose dialogue would sound assed out of context.
Note that I’m not defending The Matrix. It’s a cool film, obviously the ultimate geek fantasy, and it does provoke some thoughts, if only because the heroes appear to be on the wrong side, but it’s not exactly film-making history (apart from the special effects, and I may be wrong even on that). I just called you on an obvious lie and attacking the movie on the wrong grounds.
EXCUSE ME?! What “obvious lie” would that be? I said the concept of the movie’s being deep “was a new one on me.” You immediately open your hole with with
Well, if you know what I think so very well, smart guy, what word am I thinking of to describe you right now? It starts with “pr” and rhymes with “ick.”
I don’t have to “pretend” I don’t understand why anyone would. I really don’t. And as I made clear in my follow-up post, what was new for me was to see someone else describe the film as “deep.” I personally thought about it a little after reading the article I linked to in my first post. (You’ll note it was published a mere week or so ago, and contains within it a link to the dialogue page, which is where I found that also).
And what is this shit about “attacking it on the wrong grounds”? Since when are YOU the almighty Arbiter of what grounds are appropriate to attack something on?
“Handy”? I have a link to Slate.com on my computer, and I read the article when it was new, just a week ago. As for my “premeditated” rave, you must not be aware that some people can think and type quite quickly. Anyone who knows what I used to do for a living knows that I am such a person. Not that it’s so very rare.
**
Harry Lime didn’t have much more dialogue. And that is the point. The character didn’t say “What?” in every other sentence, about 50 times, like a stupid brain-dead teenager.
Lizard, calm down. I apologize for getting you all riled up. It does seem totally incomprehensible to me that someone has managed to miss that some people do indeed see The Matrix as deep. If it was in fact new to you a week ago, then fine. I find that very strange, but fine. However, fact remains that it wasn’t new to you today, which is what I thought you were saying.
Also, I think you do understand why some people consider The Matrix deep. I know you don’t agree, I know you consider the ideas in the film old and rehashed, but nevertheless you must acknowledge that there is something there. For someone who is not familiar with those ideas, The Matrix does seem deep. Surely you can see this?
Comparison: Tom&Jerry isn’t deep. If you were to say that you don’t understand why some people consider Tom&Jerry deep, I wouldn’t argue. Ditto for… I don’t know, Maid in Manhattan? Films like that. But whether or not you yourself agree, you must be able to see that there is at least something inThe Matrix that can be considered deep.
Well… what I had originally meant was that compared to say, “Die Hard” or most other action movies; both present a lot more to think about - they’re certainly not just action movies that you can walk away from without doing any doing at least some deeper thinking.
So to try and define “deep,” which movie has more fodder for a paper analyzing their different allusions, or which poses more questions, which can you do more “deeper” thinking about.
C’mon, the Matrix draws parallels to Christianity and Buddhism like a champ: (Doubting) Thomas Anderson (Son of Man) for one, oh and the idea that the Matrix could really be true. The X-Men could be seen as one giant allegory for people coming out of the closet.
Okay, so they’re not as “deep” when compared to movies which were meant to just be “deep,” but for very, very successfull popular films they’re damn deep.
Well, the problem isn’t that there aren’t ideas in The Matrix; it’s that they’ve been done before. I found the gnostic ties in The Matrix by far the most interesting, if only because that theme has turned up in basically every human culture since time immemorial. It’s always interesting to see each period’s and culture’s take on it. There is a lot in The Matrix, it’s just not all that original.
The only really interesting “deep” question I think the Matrix poses is the one Cypher poses: Does it really matter how real our reality is, as long as we can’t tell the difference?
The problem is the movie doesn’t really pose the question as a dilemma, but pretty much brushes aside Cypher, because of course he is the bad guy and his idea that he is better off in the Matrix must be wrong.
I think it aspires to be deeper than that, but I think it pretty much fails.
As Roger Ebert explained in his review of “The Matrix,” the film operates on the borrowed premises of earlier movies like “Dark City” and “Strange Days,” (and the movies “eXistenZ” and “TRON,” I might add.) I suppose if we want to give a film credit for an idea it did not originate, than we could do so with “The Matrix.” An idea is still an idea, even if its not original.
But having seen all of the aforementioned movies, it’s hard for me to be slack-jawed with wonderment at “The Matrix.” TRON, after all, came out in 1982, Strange Days in 1995. Like Badtz Maru said, I think the people who find it “deep” are probably the ones who could use a little more depth in their lives in general.
I would say that’s the big one, but a close second, that is given more debate-atude, is the question of free will and predetermination. This ties in with the artificial reality theme, but it also applies outside it. Is Neo a hero because he wants to be, or because it’s prophesied? What does it mean for free will for the Oracle to exist? I think the fact that they made the Oracle an interactive person rather than some Nostradamus text, and she actually acknowledges how much her existence screws with our ideas of reality, was a nice touch.