Keanu Reeves

[Zoop]

Keanu should be treasured.

 

[Duke of Douchington]

Zoop, you've finally made a worthwhile post. Good job, kid.

 

[Zoop]

Sex

 

[Sheluvsbama]

Between the two of them I would never look at Cage.

 

[TheDayMan]

Keanu Reeves's flight makes an emergency landing — and he takes a road trip home with a bunch of strangers

 

[Battlelyon]

Keanu Reeves's flight makes an emergency landing — and he takes a road trip home with a bunch of strangers

He should be the standard for Hollywood types

 

[ThereIsNoPlace]

 

[Zwalt]

he also did a lot of tactical gun training

A friend of mine worked with him on his tactical gun work. I hear he's a really good dude to work with and his usage of weapons is very realistic. Note he almost always uses two hands on his pistol, very unorthodox with Hollywood in general.

 

[Zwalt]

Not a chance. Go watch the triology then watch Star Wars: A Phantom Menace, Star Wars had far better graphics. The Matrix really showed what you could do with great editting and 20 cameras working at once. The scenes with CGI were passable by those standards, but were by no means the best at the time. Even the practical effects look stiff, i.e. you can clearly tell the scenes where a wire/harness was used. Part of me wants to believe that THAT is kind of a point in that particular practical effect for this particular movie but it still looks bad in my opinion.

The soundtrack, while again, acceptable for the time... in my opinion feels misplaced watching nowadays. And that is not something I would say about every film. The score is a dreadful techno through most of it, which at the time (as a kid) I never minded nor even probably really noticed, but I am sorry.... IT SUCKS. Techno sucks. There, I said it.

When I first saw the movie, I thought the story was interesting. As I have grown older and admittedly more pragmatic, I find it purposefully nonsensical and vague. In my opinion it's laziness. I feel that it wants the audience to fill in the blanks with their own interpretation rather than lay out a philosophy that allows the audience to expound upon. I could foresee an argument where the Matrix does both of those things, but in my opinion, doing the former (even with the latter) hurts the movie.

But again, that is just how I feel about it. I won't doubt the rave it created upon its release. I specifically remember being blown away as well. But after watching it again a couple years ago... it really isn't that great and it gets worse as it goes on. Again, the first movie is head and shoulders better than the other two and I would actually consider a good movie, I'd give it a 6/10. I wouldn't say the same for the other two.

I really hate to agree with TheDayMan but this is just wrong. First, you are comparing massively different budgets for films in roughly the same era. You may not be impressed with the Matrix now, but at the time of it's release, the camera work was considered revolutionary. What was revolutionary about the Phantom Menace? Everyone that watched it wanting to kill Jar Jar Binks? Yeah, it had some big CGI scenes, but really nothing that was revolutionary. It was just money being spent to entertain masses that were willing to accept some really stupid and bland characters.

I really think you are trying to view the film through the filter of 20 years later. Based on that, most films that rely on special effects are going to fail.

 

[calsnowskier]

I really hate to agree with TheDayMan but this is just wrong. First, you are comparing massively different budgets for films in roughly the same era. You may not be impressed with the Matrix now, but at the time of it's release, the camera work was considered revolutionary. What was revolutionary about the Phantom Menace? Everyone that watched it wanting to kill Jar Jar Binks? Yeah, it had some big CGI scenes, but really nothing that was revolutionary. It was just money being spent to entertain masses that were willing to accept some really stupid and bland characters.

I really think you are trying to view the film through the filter of 20 years later. Based on that, most films that rely on special effects are going to fail.

Anecdotal, granted, but the #1 movie of all time is entirely based on special effects...

 

[huskers1217]

A friend of mine worked with him on his tactical gun work. I hear he's a really good dude to work with and his usage of weapons is very realistic. Note he almost always uses two hands on his pistol, very unorthodox with Hollywood in general.

 

[mr.hockey4242]

A friend of mine worked with him on his tactical gun work. I hear he's a really good dude to work with and his usage of weapons is very realistic. Note he almost always uses two hands on his pistol, very unorthodox with Hollywood in general.

Yeah I’m pretty sure he’s well known for always training for his roles in fighting and tactical.

 

[TheDayMan]

I really hate to agree with TheDayMan but this is just wrong. First, you are comparing massively different budgets for films in roughly the same era. You may not be impressed with the Matrix now, but at the time of it's release, the camera work was considered revolutionary. What was revolutionary about the Phantom Menace? Everyone that watched it wanting to kill Jar Jar Binks? Yeah, it had some big CGI scenes, but really nothing that was revolutionary. It was just money being spent to entertain masses that were willing to accept some really stupid and bland characters.

I really think you are trying to view the film through the filter of 20 years later. Based on that, most films that rely on special effects are going to fail.

Hey...

 

[Zwalt]

Hey...

It was kind of a compliment ....sort of....

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

I really hate to agree with TheDayMan but this is just wrong. First, you are comparing massively different budgets for films in roughly the same era. You may not be impressed with the Matrix now, but at the time of it's release, the camera work was considered revolutionary. What was revolutionary about the Phantom Menace? Everyone that watched it wanting to kill Jar Jar Binks? Yeah, it had some big CGI scenes, but really nothing that was revolutionary. It was just money being spent to entertain masses that were willing to accept some really stupid and bland characters.

I really think you are trying to view the film through the filter of 20 years later. Based on that, most films that rely on special effects are going to fail.

I agree with everything you said actually. As I mentioned in my comment, The Matrix had good graphics, no doubt, my point was merely that they weren't the best of the time. They were passable easily, like I said, just not the absolute best. I understand budgets get in the way, but that is irrelevant in my opinion. We could apply budget standards to nearly every film in some capacity and use it as an excuse to cover up something that was rather bland. If a movie has a small budget and produces good CGI and another movie has a bigger budget and has better CGI... it doesn't mean the movie with a smaller budget suddenly has better CGI. It is still good, but not as good.

And for the record, I was by no means trying to say that The Phantom Menace was better than The Matrix at all.

I also gave The Matrix credit with its camera work.

 

[Zwalt]

I agree with everything you said actually. As I mentioned in my comment, The Matrix had good graphics, no doubt, my point was merely that they weren't the best of the time. They were passable easily, like I said, just not the absolute best. I understand budgets get in the way, but that is irrelevant in my opinion. We could apply budget standards to nearly every film in some capacity and use it as an excuse to cover up something that was rather bland. If a movie has a small budget and produces good CGI and another movie has a bigger budget and has better CGI... it doesn't mean the movie with a smaller budget suddenly has better CGI. It is still good, but not as good.

And for the record, I was by no means trying to say that The Phantom Menace was better than The Matrix at all.

I also gave The Matrix credit with its camera work.

Fair enough, and in my defense, I was drinking when I read your comment

 

[UK Cowboy]

I read where Sandra Bullock was originally offered the role of Neo. I would have enjoyed the movie better if it had been her having sex with Trinity

 

[PatsFan2003]

I might catch some real flack for this.... but I have never seen ANY of the Godfathers. With that in mind, I think Al Pacino is one of the most overrated actors of all time.

**subject to change whenever I bring myself to watch the Godfather series**

Those were two of Pacino's best films so the overrated label is kind of a joke if you haven't seen those.

Yes Pacino has been in some stinker movies but also some of the best of all time.

 

[calsnowskier]

Those were two of Pacino's best films so the overrated label is kind of a joke if you haven't seen those.

Yes Pacino has been in some stinker movies but also some of the best of all time.

I think Scent of a Woman broke him. Ever since, he has just been a caricature.

 

[Sharkonabicycle]

I was a big fan of him in "The Devil's Advocate." And I liked him in Knock Knock because we got to see Armas and Izzo nude, so that's a +. Matrix was meh... I was never a huge fan of that series. He did another decent movie where he coached a little league team or something, it was pretty good. And of course you can't count out Speed. The epitome of action movies in the 90s.