• zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Matrix is great all the way through. The problem is that a lot of people didn’t understand the story. There’s a good explainer on YouTube by Looper.

    • gerbler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Eh, the subtext in 2 and 3 is neat but the first movie is by far the best. It sets up a premise and concludes it beautifully and doesn’t get too big for its britches. I still enjoy some of the over the top moments from 2 and 3 but there’s definitely a leap and I’m not sure the pay off is as good as the first film.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I agree they’re better than this says, but the first is also the best, by a moderate margin. The other two get a lot of shit that isn’t deserved.

    • Billegh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Sure, but it is also the medium’s responsibility to help the audience understand.

      • IzzyScissor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 hours ago

        That’s true, but I’d argue that the more personal that any art is, the fewer people who will instantly understand their meaning.

        Think about it like this, if you were watching a movie in a language you don’t speak (without subtitles), you could still enjoy a lot of it, but might not be able to fully follow the story. But, the story is still there if you know how to hear it. Sometimes you just need someone else to help translate.

    • Master@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      1st is at the top. 2nd is at the two thirds mark. 3rd is overflowing with a vangence!

  • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Terminator is a strange one. Cooked with the first movie, second one is somehow even better and then the third one is absolute ass.

  • Lorindól@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I am fully aware I’m pretty much alone with my opinion, but I find Terminator 1 far superior to T2.

    Even with the limited budget T1 manages to create a far more horrifying vision of an unstoppable killer coming after you. The lo-fi’ish synth soundtrack sets a perfect oppressive feeling. The casting is perfect, Michael Biehn’ s scarred and wiry Reese with Hamilton’s young and scared next door girl going against metal-Arnold in his prime is the epitome of underdog scenarios.

    And the pacing is very good, the plot flows.

    T2 is a good film, but like many sequels, it suffers from the “let’s do the same thing from a different angle, but bigger and louder!” - syndrome. It doesn’t really get to be it’s own kind of beast. I was very surprised that Cameron fell for the trap, after he avoided that mistake with “Aliens”. Switching genre from space horror to space action made that film stand firmly on it’s own feet and the result was good.

    Lastly, T2 has the young John Connor doing the “badass kid” - role, which so many seem to love. I just find the character annoying.

    • BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I think T2 hits everybody that was a certain age when it came out a bit different. Young John Connor appealed to the divorced-parents-latch-key-kid generation.

      Though hard agree the first one was pretty solid. Definitely more of a horror vibe.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        Nope, including the LotR movies. I will die on this hill.

        Specifically, Robert Zemeckis > Peter Jackson. the BttF trilogy was masterfully executed with great plot, pacing, and incredible attention to detail (down to things like e.g. “Twin Pines Mall” becoming “Lone Pine Mall” because Marty ran over one of Old Man Peabody’s pines). Meanwhile, Peter Jackson couldn’t even figure out how to get major plot points like the Scouring of the Shire to work, let alone Tom Bombadil.

    • Allonzee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 hours ago

      They made viewers work to understand. Viewers largely rejected that.

      Which has led us, irrevocably, to spoon fed trash that plays to the dumbest person in the audience.

      • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I enjoyed all three movies, but there was a lot that I didn’t get until I watched an explainer on YouTube.

      • Mandy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 hours ago

        well, on that one, i personally flat out noped out when they had that rotund dude thirst over trinity

  • addie@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Cruelly overlooked: getting Tremors 1, 2, 3 and Highlander 1, 2, 3 onto this chart.

  • deus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    9 hours ago

    I can’t wait for Dune 3. If Villeneuve sticks the landing his trilogy will become for Sci-fi what LotR is for fantasy.

  • PoopingCough@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Since no one here is talking about the Jurassic Park trilogy, I’ll go ahead and say my hot take. JP3 is way better than 2. And obviously the originals are all miles ahead of the Jurassic Worlds.