Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="barsoomcore" data-source="post: 849887" data-attributes="member: 812">We have different opinions on what constitutes a convincing performance. Fair enough.Well, you said "The Matrix is for the deeper minded people". I said that may be true, but you hadn't shown any evidence to support that suggestion. I offered the fact that I can recognize "GSS" for what it is as evidence that maybe I'm just as deep-minded as the next guy, and thus if the film doesn't appeal to me, then maybe it DOESN'T appeal to the deeper minded people.What I'm getting at is we have opposing views -- not only on the quality of the movie (which is purely subjective) but on the reasons for the movie's popularity. My assertion is that the movie appeals primarily because it offers a fantasy of power. It appeals to people who find power fantasies attractive. The movie became extremely popular because its fantasy is well-calculated for appeal (keeping the main figure as personality-less possible, minimizing any potential need for responsibility, etc). Your assertion was that the movie appeals primarily because of its special effects and intellectual content (I'm extrapolating from comments of yours about higher calibre of person or the deeper minded people).I think you're wrong. Not about whether or not you like the Matrix -- I'm sure that you do. Not even about why YOU like it -- if it made you think or whatever, then great. I certainly have no reason to doubt you. But I think you're wrong about the primary appeal of the movie.Well, I don't know exactly what I was looking for but what I got were dull fight scenes, overused special effects that only served as distraction, bad acting, bad dialogue and an irritating pretension that seemed to assume I was too stupid to notice the lameness of it all.And so, as I have said, I wondered why such a bad movie became so popular. Now we each have our theories. I don't think yours is a very good theory for reasons I've already gone into, but primarily concern the idea that the effects were not as innovative as the hype machine would have us think, and that the intellectual content was pretty much non-existent, despite the high-falutin' phraseology of the figures in the movie.</blockquote>

Verification