I read a review of THE MATRIX RELOADED by a director (I'll keep his name out of this) who was very disappointed with the movie after being so impressed with the first one.
His review read as follows:
"I'm going to put a review of Matrix Reloaded here. I just want to get all that disappointment off my chest. Why oh why oh why oh why? It's so hard to make a film and I can't take anything away from their technical delivery this movie but I have to question the creative decisions the brothers made on the film. Why Zion and the bad Duran Duran video rave scene? Why did they let Laurance Fishburne do a bad parody of himself from the first film? Why did they divorce the action from the story telling? Why did they think that psuedo intellectual, impenetrable, static, dialogue scenes were going to work? I could go on but I can't. I'm too upset. It wouldn't matter but I thought the first one was so godamn brilliant and I was excited about this one. Here's hoping the third one justifies it all."
I liked that one key line "why did they divorce the action from the story telling" as it sounds a very important point for a scriptwriter not to make this mistake but unfortunately I can't make out what he means.
I thought the action scenes in RELOADED fit in with the storyline quite well (the freeway chase scene in particular) and none of it seemed like they tried to shoe-horn a fight scene in just for the hell of it.
Can anyone expand on this phrase and maybe point to where I'm wrong and maybe other action films where the action has not been divorced from the storyline to make a comparison?
His review read as follows:
"I'm going to put a review of Matrix Reloaded here. I just want to get all that disappointment off my chest. Why oh why oh why oh why? It's so hard to make a film and I can't take anything away from their technical delivery this movie but I have to question the creative decisions the brothers made on the film. Why Zion and the bad Duran Duran video rave scene? Why did they let Laurance Fishburne do a bad parody of himself from the first film? Why did they divorce the action from the story telling? Why did they think that psuedo intellectual, impenetrable, static, dialogue scenes were going to work? I could go on but I can't. I'm too upset. It wouldn't matter but I thought the first one was so godamn brilliant and I was excited about this one. Here's hoping the third one justifies it all."
I liked that one key line "why did they divorce the action from the story telling" as it sounds a very important point for a scriptwriter not to make this mistake but unfortunately I can't make out what he means.
I thought the action scenes in RELOADED fit in with the storyline quite well (the freeway chase scene in particular) and none of it seemed like they tried to shoe-horn a fight scene in just for the hell of it.
Can anyone expand on this phrase and maybe point to where I'm wrong and maybe other action films where the action has not been divorced from the storyline to make a comparison?
Comment