Tonight it was back to (again) working through all of Quentin Tarantino's work with a new and hopefully better perspective.

I'd only seen "Reservoir Dogs" once before, and I remember not really caring for it. This time I actually enjoyed it quite a bit, although I will note that again the movie opens with a mostly meaningless conversation in a diner that has little to no relevance to the rest of the movie. I don't remember "Jackie brown" very well, but I sure hope that one doesn't do the same. It's already old.

Anyway, most incredibly curiously, this movie is strong on character. None of them really arc at all, but they do all have distinct personalities and seem like actual people (in contrast to Pulp Fiction, where only Jules seemed to have any real character, and maybe Butch (but to a much lesser extent)). But what's really odd is it's so SO light on story.

It's like RD and PF are opposites... the first is all character little story, the latter is little character all story. It's really... weird. And I really hope at some point Quentin is able to finally marry the two.

RD felt a lot more violent than PF did, which is saying something because PF is certainly violent and Quentin clearly has a penchant for exploring violence in odd ways.

What was really refreshing about RD, though, was the complete lack of pretentiousness (even though Quentin cast himself as one of the (minor) characters again). This, to me, felt like he was trying to make a good movie. PF felt more like he was trying to make a good movie while showing off, if that makes sense.

I hope the pretentiousness wears off in later films (I think we're going mostly in order, though I know we watched RD and PF backwards). I remember "Jackie Brown" kind of tanked in theaters, so perhaps that humbled him some... which would be good, because after PF I think he needed it (or maybe he just needed more restrictions placed on him and what he could or couldn't do).

Anyway, it's a decent enough movie and Harvey Keitel is really quite good in it. But honestly it's not something I need to see again, really, and neither was PF. Which is odd, because for some reason I thought I liked Quentin a lot more than I'm seeming to so far when rewatching his stuff.

So... we'll see how the rest of them go. Anyway, Reservoir Dogs... decent, but not great.

Final grade: B-

What do YOU think, friends list?

I'm a bit muddled after this one. It has action sequences that actually put the action sequences in its direct prequels to shame. There's some truly astounding stuff to behold.

The end final Neo/Smith fight may still be the greatest superhero fight ever on film. I'd love to see a Superman movie with THAT level of a fight in it. Holy crap.

Of the three, Revolutions is the lightest on story. It's still got some, but it's very minor compared to the others. I think this is because Reloaded and Revolutions were clearly one movie split into two.

There weren't even reminders or refreshers about some of the stuff from Reloaded, it just picked up exactly where they left off and ran with it. Which means, on its own, Revolutions doesn't hold up too well.

If you look at the entire trilogy as one story, however, Revolutions makes a lot more sense in that it instantly just builds to the climax... and then climaxes for about 90 minutes straight. Out of a, what, five hour story, that's more acceptable (but still a bit much). Out of a 2.5 hour movie, though, it's a problem.

It's also telling how, in the brief scene in the train station we spend maybe five minutes total with the man (program) who's taking his daughter (program) into the matrix to hide because "she serves no purpose" and was marked for deletion, and he wanted to save her. And that man, whatever his name might be, acted CIRCLES around Keanu.

And I believed that man loved his daughter. In all three movies, I never ONCE believed Neo loved Trinity, or that Trinity loved Neo. That is some pretty big writing and acting fail.

I find I like this movie the least of the three, because it has precious little of the philosophical ponderings of the other two. Although Neo's third discussion with the Oracle is enjoyable (although Smith meeting the Oracle is a big highlight of the movie) and the moment at the end of the Neo/Smith final battle, where Smith's frustration and anger overwhelm him and he yells and screams about why Neo continues to fight when he's clearly lost the battle and cannot win, and Neo's simple and elegant answer of "because I choose to", is almost worth the price of admission alone. Not on its own, within "Revolutions", but because of the broader meaning of that after what he's been through and the discussions he's had in the previous movies.

it's the perfect culmination for his arc. Now if only I had cared one bit about him as a person so that his sacrifice meant something to me.

The action in Revolutions is absolutely the action highlight of the entire franchise (the attack on Zion and the final Neo/Smith battle), but beyond that there's really not much in this one. Still worth watching for action scenes done well, and worth watching for the Smith/Oracle scene (cheesy laugh aside) and for the culmination to the final battle (though the latter will only be relevant if you've watched the first two... but anyone who's never seen the first two should stay far far away).

Final grade: C+

It's weird, some of the best action ever but one of the most story-less movies ever. Again, likely due to Revolutions and Reloaded being split. If they'd been released as one movie they would have worked better, and all the useless parts of Reloaded could have been cut (along with maybe half the battle for Zion stuff from Revolutions) and you have one phenomenal three hour movie.

But it is what it is, and my final verdict says it's a decent (but not as spectacular as it could and should have been) action franchise.

Final franchise grade: B-


What do YOU think, friends list?

Well... I certainly picked up on a lot more this time than I ever had before. It actually all makes a LOT more sense to me now.

I will say that there was a decent amount of gratuity here... the fight between Neo and Seraph was pointless. The rave-Neo/Trinity sex scene is just ridiculous, and I remember thinking that the first time I saw it, but I completely forgot how absurdly long it goes on for.

Don't even get me started on the chocolate cake and the matrix-zoom into the exploding crotch. WTF?

But, those things aside... I gotta say, I don't get most of the hate for this movie (and those of you out there who hated it, please share your thoughts). It had an excellent throughline of choice vs. the illusion of choice, and control vs. free will. Perhaps it's just stuff that I'm personally fascinated with, as some of my absolute favorite stuff deals with those topics ("The Prisoner", "Nowhere Man", etc). Anything that deals with the nature of reality (to a lesser extent things like the matrix itself, but free will vs. control and choice vs. fate as much broader strokes especially) just turns my writer crank like nothing else.

Our last screenplay, "The Reprodyne Project", actually deals with some of those. And our next one will, too, and I'm sensing a pattern there (perhaps because it was intentional... but then did we actually CHOOSE to do that, or did we merely let ourselves THINK we chose it? :)

As an aside, there was also a BRILLIANTLY subtle nod to "The Prisoner" in "Reloaded" in that Neo is anomaly NUMBER 6. Who chooses the door the Architect doesn't want him to take because, after all...

He is not a number, he's a free man.

If you overlook the gratuity, which I chalk up to the Wachowski's being told they could do whatever the hell they wanted after "The Matrix" made 2i4678124681624786 (yes, with an i) dollars. I am all about creators having creative control, but I have found time and time and time again that the lack of ANY restraints results in a weaker product.

As evidence I submit the endless rave/sex scene and the Neo/Seraph fight in "Revelations". I submit the 60 second pan around the inside of the restaurant set in "Pulp Fiction". I submit that as the "Harry Potter" books went on and on, they became more and MORE in dire need of editing. I submit that "Ren & Stimpy" on Nickelodeon was hilarious but "Ren & Stimpy" on Spike was god-awful. I submit the Star Wars prequels. The list goes on and on. And that's clearly what happened here (at least in my view).

But those issues aside, what I find remains is still a strong middle chapter. Neo actually gets just a hint of a character, but really most of the character stuff seems to come from Link. There's also some for Smith, but only just barely.

But even then, the movie is still EXTREMELY light on character. On plot and story, though, I think it moved along quite nicely. My only other complaint other than directorial gratuity (and the SFX of the time perhaps not quite always being up to what the Wachowkis envisioned, like in the Burly Brawl) is the lack of character.

And again, that is SO ODD for a movie with such a pronounced arc for the main character. He's a free man! You can't control him! (or maybe that's just what they want you to think, Neo) He will fight fate and fight destiny and on and on. He'll just have no personality while doing so.

I can't help but wonder what a good actor would have done with the EXACT same part. Because without even the writing changed to add more character stuff, a good actor can put all of that into a performance. But that is not to excuse the writing, which is indeed quite lacking in the character department.

Still though, it's head and shoulders above standard action fare and explores philosophical themes in an intelligent way and has more of some of the best action scenes ever put to film.

It's really hard for me to rate this compared to "The Matrix". The stories were like two sides of the same coin, and I don't know that one succeeded any better than the other. And both were just as lacking in character. The only upside I can find is "The Matrix" has an ending whereas "Reloaded" just ends. And I know it picks up directly with "Revolutions", but I still don't think that's any excuse for not making a middle chapter that could stand on its own aka had its own mini-resolution. I suppose "Reloaded" kind of had that, while introducing the ending cliffhangers, but... I don't know, it's late and I'm tired and we'll just see what "Revolutions" brings, since I don't remember much from that one either.

But yeah, I certainly don't get all the hate at this point. It's flawed, but it's still a good, intelligent action flick. I'll rate it just the same as "The Matrix":

B+

The movie train rolls on!

What do you want, television is all repeats for weeks and I couldn't NOT use my brain anymore. I just had to.

Anyway, tonight we rewatched "The Matrix" because it'd be absolute ages since we'd seen it. I remember liking it quite a bit, and I also remember liking its sequels, and I remember most people thinking the sequels were crap and I would like to remember them well enough to know whether I agree or disagree on that supposition.

The plan is "Reloaded" tomorrow night and then "Revolutions" on Tuesday night. The hope is seeing them all in rapid succession will keep them fresh in our minds and allow us to better evaluate them as a cohesive story.

Anyway, I think "The Matrix" holds up. I noticed a LOT of things I had missed before (even though I'd seen it multiple times), especially in the realms of subtext and allegory. And there's stuff here setting up the eventual ending of "Revolutions", so that was interesting to see.

There were some clunky lines, though, and it was very light on character (which is odd for a movie where the main character has such a pronounced arc). Neo's journey is very clear, and story-wise it works on several levels in somewhat magnificent fashion, but... Neo still doesn't feel like a person to me (he never really did). Morpheus has personality. Trinity has some personality. Neo never felt like he had any. I know a large portion of that is that the character had the great misfortune of being played by non-actor Keanu Reeves, but if you examine it from a writing standpoint there's really nothing there in terms of personality.

Which is sad, because his journey into accepting who he is, the fate/free will outlooks butting heads, the nature of reality, the nature of faith etc etc were all very nicely done. But Neo means nothing to me because there's nothing TO him.

He's kind of a giant MacGuffin, which is really odd for a main character.

It's hard to fairly judge some aspects because they changed movies and because they have been so ridiculously spoofed and homaged into oblivion. The mid-air spinning kick, the bend-over-backwards bullet dodge, etc.

But if I ignore those aspects (because I find I can't fairly judge them anymore due to cultural saturation), I find the action scenes to be a lot of fun and they work really well.

My only true complaint is really the lack of character, which is a big one, but at least there's a triple heaping of story to make up for it. Certainly it's at least much more intelligent than the average action fare, and it's certainly worth watching and stands as a pretty good movie.

I really hope the sequels hold up, I've only seen each of them once and that was back when they came out.

What do YOU think, LJ?

We just watched Pulp Fiction again for the first time in at least a decade.

I've enjoyed Quentin Tarantino's work, and long believed "Pulp" to be the best he'd done. And it's still got some great moments and great lines and great scenes, but... some of it felt really indulgent to me, even pretentious.

I know this was the movie where Tarantino exploded into Hollywood and so they were probably putting almost no restrictions on him, and that shows. Things like the incredibly long pan following Vincent around the restaurant are just ludicrous... yes, I get it, you like that place, Quentin. I've seen enough of it now, can we please move on?

I still enjoy the non-linear construction of the story, and I can see the opening/closing scenes as bookends to frame everything else, but I can't help but feel it's a really weak opening. That scene seems to go on for a while (in reality only about 5 minutes, but still) and it's just two people talking about robbing the restaurant. And they are completely unimportant people who matter not at all except to give Jules his moment at the end of the movie.

I don't know, I totally see why he ordered the scenes the way he did, but it just made for a really slow and mostly meaningless opening (in terms of character or story).

I'm too tired to really be posting about this now, but tomorrow I have a ton more work to do and likely won't have the time, especially as... hey, Christmas Eve, maybe I should do some holidayish stuff with the fam if I can squeeze in a little time, you know?

Anyway, just wanted to get my thoughts out there while I'm still mulling them over.

What did YOU think of Pulp Fiction, Friends List?

ps - I've decided I want to try to post more after movies we've seen, if for no other reason than to jot my thoughts down on them. I find it helps me better analyze them from a storytelling perspective, and that helps me approach our own writing from new angles. So you may see more of these in the future... likely all for old movies, because we can pretty much never get out to see new ones.