We do get both in this one, there were shots from the set with him having a shaved head again and also shots from the set of Wick 4 where extensions were being glued into his hair as it hasn't grown back enough
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Matrix: Resurrections
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by QualityChimp View PostI like Reeves without a beard
Comment
-
Well, I really love the Matrix and the worlds the Wachowskis made.
Although I dislike the third film as I personally think it fails on satisfactorily closing the series and upping the action scenes, I think the first film is a masterpiece and Reloaded is a benchmark for action sequences.
I thought The Animatrix was a great way to pay respects to their influences and flesh out the world of The Matrix and even Enter The Matrix was a fun game to play that gave you the opportunity to enact one of the other stories going on whilst Neo and the Nebuchadnezzar crew did theirs.
I'm genuinely excited about Resurrections, especially after seeing some of the imagery they've teased us with.
Comment
-
Comment
-
If Resurrections is a genuine continuation as it appears to be then Revolutions is no longer the franchises ending, it'll be interesting to see if opinion remains as vicious in the years to come as new audiences discover the franchise and to them it's just the third chapter of 4-6 installments.
Comment
-
I feel like some Matrix analysis is akin to Lost fan theories. Partly the fans doing work the writers should have done and partly disappearing up their own rear ends in order to justify their investment in the story. That's not to say people shouldn't enjoy them! There is plenty to enjoy. But I don't think the movies are anywhere near as deep as the Wachowskis would like to think they are as the draw of the story floated away from them through self-indulgence. But I also think a lot of what we saw in the sequels may have come down to one question: how in the hell do we deliver on that first film ending? And their answer was not to try.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dogg Thang View PostI feel like some Matrix analysis is akin to Lost fan theories. Partly the fans doing work the writers should have done and partly disappearing up their own rear ends in order to justify their investment in the story. That's not to say people shouldn't enjoy them! There is plenty to enjoy. But I don't think the movies are anywhere near as deep as the Wachowskis would like to think they are as the draw of the story floated away from them through self-indulgence. But I also think a lot of what we saw in the sequels may have come down to one question: how in the hell do we deliver on that first film ending? And their answer was not to try.
I had a friend who loved it, was raving about the ending, and I asked him if it was any good. He said,
"If you want a resolution for the characters, the emotional journey, you'll like it. If you're still asking 'so why was there a polar bear on a tropical island' then you'll hate it."
I thanked him. He saved me having to watch Lost.
Comment
-
The poster concludes with:
"Of course, my interpretation rests on the shoulders of one important assumption: that the Wachowskis did nothing randomly or haphazardly. Some people might not agree, and that's fine: we all look at art differently. But looking at the whole trilogy, I absolutely believe there are no coincidences in their writing. Each time Neo bleeds in the matrix is therefore of the utmost importance. Bleeding from the mouth announces a spoken truth, and bleeding from the hand announces a performed truth. The pause inserted at this instant demands we pay close attention."
One of the things I learned at university in Film Studies is that you can't overanalyse a scene because even if you see something that wasn't intentional by the director, it still could be there.
Like the West reads from left to right, so the hero tends to be on the right of the screen because subliminally we've trained our eye to be drawn that way.
In Room 237, there are a bunch of crazy ideas about The Shining in it like it's a metaphor for the genocide of Native Americans and it's evidence that Kubrick helped fake the moon landing.
I think 99% of them are nonsense, and even if it's not what the film makers intended, I can't argue that those concepts are what those viewers took away.
There's a difference in saying "this is what I believe the Director was saying and what I take away from it" and "This is what the Director was categorically saying".
Comment
-
Originally posted by Asura View PostExactly why I can't deal with Lost.
I had a friend who loved it, was raving about the ending, and I asked him if it was any good. He said,
"If you want a resolution for the characters, the emotional journey, you'll like it. If you're still asking 'so why was there a polar bear on a tropical island' then you'll hate it."
I thanked him. He saved me having to watch Lost.
Comment
Comment