[EyeAmEye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grawk /img/forum/go_quote.gif Keanu gets hated on a lot, but his acting style was perfect for that role, imho.

Agreed, plus, I'll probably get roasted over an open flame here, but I think Harrison Ford is terrible. It's hard to get more wooden than him. He delivers every line in monotone and he perpetually looks like he's constipated. Rutger Hauer, however, was excellent and made that film what it was, despite Ford.

 

[grawk]

I kinda feel like ford was playing that the right way too, completely to character. If you ignore Ridley Scott, and go to the source material, what makes BR interesting is that Deckard was a human who was "less human" than the replicants. So Ford conveys less emotion and less life than the "fake humans" he was sent to eliminate.

Of course, if you listen to Ridley Scott, there's no dilema, Deckard is just a replicant who isnt' human at all, and is perfectly acted. And Blade Runner becomes a waste of time to watch or think about.

 

[JSTpt1022]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grawk /img/forum/go_quote.gif I personally like the sequels more than the original matrix, because it explores the philosophy more.

I'll second that. Anyone who thinks The Matrix and its sequels are pure bubblegum needs to watch them again with a more open mind.

That said, I like Blade Runner sans narration.

 

[redrich2000]

They are way too different to compare in this way. Both are sci-fi yes, but Bladerunner is a work of art.

The Matrix v Big Trouble in Little China would be more like it. I have always thought the The Matrix had the same brilliant chessy self-parody quality of BTiLC.

 

[grawk]

The Matrix isn't a parody at all, no matter what you may think of it. It's quite layered and complex, and is trying to break ground on several fronts. Whether you think they succeed on all those fronts is debatable, but the mere presence of Cornell West in the sequels suggests that there are academics that think the original had merit.

The Matrix was, as was Bladerunner before it, esthetically groundbreaking, while using that as a vehicle to delve deeper into what life is. Science Fiction is merely a vehicle.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grawk /img/forum/go_quote.gif I kinda feel like ford was playing that the right way too, completely to character. If you ignore Ridley Scott, and go to the source material, what makes BR interesting is that Deckard was a human who was "less human" than the replicants. So Ford conveys less emotion and less life than the "fake humans" he was sent to eliminate. Of course, if you listen to Ridley Scott, there's no dilema, Deckard is just a replicant who isnt' human at all, and is perfectly acted. And Blade Runner becomes a waste of time to watch or think about.

Ridley Scott really made a very superficial rendering of the book and PKD hated Scott's view of the relative positions of human and android, though the liked the visuals.

Much of what made the book interesting is left out or dreadfully changed. Mercerism and the Empathy Box, Deckard's wife, the dullard is now a genius, the two Andys (Pris Stratton and Rachel Rosen) looking the same, Deckard's colleague who passes the test but is really inhumane, the opera singer, the entire fake police department, the fake sheep (and goat) ! , the cruelty of Roy Baty, What you end up with is a dystopian but pretty conventional thriller. There is no doubt in the book that Deckard is human as he tests himself.

I voted Blade Runner anyway since the Matrix is just so daft.

 

[ZephyrSapphire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samgotit /img/forum/go_quote.gif Those are cartoons.

And The Matrix has CGI....

Quote:

Originally Posted by grawk /img/forum/go_quote.gif Doing for real what had previously only been done in animation IS revolutionary.

Er, no? Since when was it ever?

 

[grawk]

And a lot of what the matrix did WASN'T cgi. It was real innovation. Bullet-time for example. The Wachowski brothers advanced the art of film making in a number of ways.

 

[ZephyrSapphire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grawk /img/forum/go_quote.gif And a lot of what the matrix did WASN'T cgi. It was real innovation. Bullet-time for example. The Wachowski brothers advanced the art of film making in a number of ways.

No one really cares about the art of film making if the story itself isn't good, I'm afraid.

 

[grawk]

And you seem to be in the minority when it comes to the opinion that the story for the matrix wasn't good.

 

[ZephyrSapphire]

Because I've seen Ghost In The Shell and Akira. Lol.

 

[grawk]

Lol, you certainly aren't the only one, Lol. They are similar in character, sure.

 

[craiglester]

I thought the Matrix looked good, and had a vaguely decent storyline, but the sequels and their somewhat heavyhanded approach to philisophy just didn't do it for me.

I'd say bullet time ,which the Wachowski brothers (or should that be brother and sister now.. hmmm), used (but did not invent) was more evolutionary than revolutionary.. I mean it was used in various ads, music videos and a couple of other movies before the matrix. We even were using it at college, using a whole bunch of stills cameras. It's not easy, and they did a good job improving the process.

I prefer Blade Runner myself, but the Matrix is fun for showing off your surround system, it's got great audio - no Vangelis though

If I had to pick a single Sci-Fi film though.. La Jetee

 

[Superpredator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSTpt1022 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'll second that. Anyone who thinks The Matrix and its sequels are pure bubblegum needs to watch them again with a more open mind.

I loved The Matrix and most of its pseudophilosophy, and can't really choose between it or Blade Runner. However, the Matrix sequels were the philosophical equivalent of being beat over the head with a cinder block, and oddly tried to mimic sci-fi a quarter of a century old instead of continuing to channel the more recent stuff coming out of Japan.

 

[Clutz]

Blade Runner - absolutely no contest.