@an-unearthly-child I can hold out hope for as long as I get the occasional No Time To Die, Toy Story 4, Mission Impossible: Fallout, Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse or Mad Max: Fury Road. Like what are we supposed to do? Should we just lower our standard and give all the other mediocrity the industry shits out a pass, as you’re implying? I think there’s great value in unpretentious entertainment when it’s handled well, so it’s worth getting upset about when it’s poorly done. It’s not even like I’m looking for substance or subtext in films like this (though it can certainly be a bonus, just look at the original Matrix), a bunch of interesting characters and well helmed action would honestly be enough. In fact, that used to be the blueprint for these in the 80s and 90s. There used to be an awareness that relying on fan pandering, cameos, artificial spectacle, (meta) references and set up the next 5 movies aren’t enough to make an entertaining film. So forgive me for my own rant (as well as what others have written), but I think it’s completely justified.
@jordyep I don't know where in my comment did you think I wrote that we should lower our standards. I literally wrote that mainstream Hollywood films aren't worth watching anymore. Besides, what does "giving a mediocrity a pass" means? Like me or you have some kind of influence on what do they make?
I had low expectations of Resurrections, and those were partially fullfilled. If my mark confuses you, don't let it, it just means I had fun watching it.
I could be brutally killing this film like the rest, dissecting its flaws like there's no tomorrow, but I decided not to, because there's no point analysing the consequences when I can analyse the causes, and my comment is quite clear in doing that. As I said, self-righteous wrath and bitching about doesn't do much, especially when you knew what you were getting into.
@an-unearthly-child Well, you explained it yourself. Giving mediocrity a pass means giving a 7 to something you had little to no expectations for, because well, the industry is dead/isn’t what it used to be. I think that kind of logic is nihilistic and unfair to the films that have set the bar for action movies like this. And yes, we do have influence on what gets made. The studios are of course primarily interested in the box office (it bombed), but believe it or not, they do also care a little bit about the audience response. Anyone can be tricked into watching a bad film because of the marketing, but that doesn’t mean everyone will fall for it again with a sequel. Just look at Suicide Squad. WB knew that people wouldn’t show up again if they followed the blueprint of the first film for the sequel, because the audience reception was so poor. So yes, there is a point in bitching and moaning about every shitty, mainstream film that’s put out. I’m perfectly aware that my own individual review won’t make a single difference, but anything that contributes to a lower IMDB score, Trakt score, Letterboxd score, Cinemascore etc. is a win.
Review by FBlockedParent2021-12-29T22:07:03Z
Once you embrace the cynicism and ignore your neverending anger about Hollywood's zombie-like state, which is dead, but not quite, which nowadays cannot produce anything but unworthy remakes of classic films, the film is quite enjoyable. If you're a fan of the series of course.
But, I don't understand what did the commentators expect; not a single sequel of 70s/80s/90s classic is comparable to an original, they as a standalone pieces can't be even considered good, that's why you have to evaluate things in context, and the context is that this film, and many others like it, were not made for art's sake, for glory of the creation, were not made out of ingeniousness of an author, out of a unique idea - they were made rutinely, industrially, on a Ford's assembly line, without a pretence of anything else but for (more or less mindless) entertainment that makes your minutes and hours go by, and most importantly, because big heads concluded this model of filmmaking is the most profitable.
You know it, filmmakers know it.
Still, I feel that there's enough good philosophical and social ideas displayed, (some obvious, but some hidden, like the dialectics, evolution of Smith and Morpheus, evolved and more complex class struggle when it comes to humans and robots, capitalist incorporation of its critique, like the reality becoming just another simulation, and most importantly, true belief in positive social change), and that Lana Wachowski has more, but is restrained by powers that be for exactly described reasons.
Visually I wasn't impressed, also I was expecting a bit more from the "sci" part of sci-fi, first part of the film is too slow, and the second part is too fast, but it's hardly embarrassing like some make it
Face it people, Hollywood is finito. Nowadays, there is hardly a new film truly worth watching that isn't an art film. Your self-righteous wrath won't get you anywhere, you should've learned this by now (I did with the X-Files remake), and it certainly won't make you a better person if you bitch about it more than the next guy. If you look for deeper meanings of this world, then leave entertainment media, and go read some books (preferably not belletristica or poetry, those are for suckers).