whogirl Reviews

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

Existential philosophy wars

[10/10 · 6 November 2003]

While "The Matrix" battled with the concept of determinism, and "Reloaded" wrestled on with issues surrounding free will and choice, "Revolutions" became the battle ground for two camps of Existentialist philosophy.

Movie-goers who don't have a background in philosophy, beware. Enjoy the ride and the FX, and try to talk this out with friends.

The philosophy:

There is a field of philosophy called Existentialism. In very general terms, they argue that you create your own reality. They believe that your life is in your control.

There are camps in Existentialist philosophy. There is a group that believes that life has no meaning, no purpose. There is another group that believes it is every human's responsibility to create a purpose for him/herself.

In "Revolutions", the 'life has no meaning/purpose' camp is represented by Smith, who has unfortunately taken over the Matrix. (No wonder it has become such a gloomy place!) The 'choose to make purpose/meaning' camp is represented by Neo. He chooses to be there, he chooses to fight.

It would seem that the Wachowski brothers are arguing that we have choice, but only a limited amount of choice, because in the end Neo cannot escape the apparently inevitable fate of the One. But in the whole process, he is able to choose a third path that wasn't offered to him by the Architect/the Machines in "Reloaded".

Are there a lot of special effects and explosions in "Revolutions"? Absolutely. Is there a message in "Revolutions"? Absolutely. Will everyone who goes to see the movie get the message? Probably not. The people who choose not to understand are the ones who will not enjoy this film. See the last installment of The Matrix Trilogy with a very open mind.

The Scorpion King (2002)

9 out of 10 for self-indulgent humour!

[9/10 · 21 April 2002]

I haven't seen a funnier movie in months! Anyone who didn't laugh right through this film missed the point: it was an action-comedy. I can't count the number of wrestling jokes, nor broken stereotypes, nor perfectly-timed goofy slow-motion cuts. I'm sure that the film was intended to be serious most of the time. Still, you can see that the cast had a great time making it, and intentional or not, the self-indulgence in the humour was a great alternative to the recent all-too-serious action that has come out lately. This is a fantastic film. It'll tickle your funny bone. And it's great to hear the Rock say "I".

Titus (1999)

Shakespeare's nightmare of cruelty and revenge

[9/10 · 9 December 2001]

"Titus Andronicus" might be Shakespeare's least-performed play, and it's easy to see why. Staging this play must be difficult at best, and finding the right actors to make it believable is even more challenging. This film staged it beautifully and found the right actors. The story plays out like a nightmare, leaving the viewer feeling disoriented and disturbed when it's all over. Brilliant film.

Truly Madly Deeply (1990)

5 out of 5 kleenexes

[10/10 · 1 March 2000]

What a beautiful movie. Juliet Stevenson gives a brilliant performance and Alan Rickman is truly real, ghost or not. It isn't a weepy movie all the way through, but it'll get you at the end. The inevitable comparison is with "Ghost", but the films are in different categories, "Ghost" being a romantic action movie. This film is far more clever and sophisticated.

Mesmer (1994)

Doctor with a "magnetic" personality

[7/10 · 27 February 2000]

"Mesmer" is a pretty good film. It's interesting, assuming that the film was based on some facts, to watch the increasing interest in the human mind and proverbial heart, especially their effect on the body, in the 1700s, which led up to the word of Freud and Jung a century later. The more interesting that Mesmer's perceived nonsense is in fact becoming very popular today in alternative medicine coming from the East: animal magnetism (Reiki), the harmony of the universe (Taoist belief) and the mind's effect on the body.

Amanda Ooms was good in her role as Maria Therese. Fortunately they made it easy for her to be blind by not having her walk obstacle courses. It was a pleasure to see Jan Rubes in a role other than in the children's show he did. As for the star, Rickman, it was a pleasure to see him in a title role. He's quite seductive in the film, and he uses his hands, one of this actor's greatest assets, very well. In the end, I found myself regretting very much that F.A. Mesmer had no effect on the medical profession of his day. He could have prevented a lot of suffering.

Close My Eyes (1991)

Maybe it's my sensibilities suffering

[3/10 · 24 February 2000]

I actually didn't find too much all that disgusting about the relationship upon which two of the main characters embark, and I find films about unfaithful husbands and wives rather interesting. But cuts are choppy, and some of the dialogue is just plain stupid. The only really good scenes were given to Alan Rickman, playing the cuckolded husband, and such scenes are regrettably brief. It was a bold attempt at something that could have been very interesting, and the twist at the end almost makes it worthwhile. But I'd spend my movie renting dollars on something else if I had a second chance.

Dogma (1999)

What a film!

[10/10 · 14 February 2000]

"Dogma", as the title might suggest, does shake up a few very commonly held beliefs among Christians, but it's probably healthy. I laughed, I laughed some more, I gagged, I cried, and I loved this movie. Maybe even a faith-renewer, for any believers out there.

Blade Runner (1982)

incredible film despite errors

[9/10 · 21 November 1999]

This film is one of the finest films ever made, without question, however it's interesting to note the number of errors in it. Just look at the list of errors here at the IMDb. Clearly a strong story and cast, since the film has withstood nit-pickers of all kinds. My favourite movie.

Rushmore (1998)

Still not sure what it all means....

[8 July 1999]

I'm still not quite sure what this film is all about, and I'm not even really sure whether or not I liked it. It's weird. Not in the Stanley Kubrick sense of weird, or the Weird Al Yankovic sense of weird. It was just... weird. I felt for all the characters, however, which makes it a good enough movie. And I laughed an awful lot. I understand the plot very well, but I don't understand what the message was supposed to be. I suppose it must be "Love whoever is available."

Babylon 5: The River of Souls (1998 TV Movie)

Imagine my surprise - Martin Sheen!

[10 May 1999]

I'm an admitted Babylon 5 fanatic, so I looked forward to seeing this film with some anticipation. And imagine my surprise when Martin Sheen waltzed into the screen! I thought he did a very good job. The film was pretty good - for some reason the films seem weaker than the series, most likely because they don't really fit into the web-like plot structure of the series.

Les Misérables (1998)

a faithful adaptation

[8/10 · 28 March 1999]

I thought that this film was a faithful adaptation of a long-winded novel. It can't have been an easy task to harrow it down, and I thoroughly enjoyed every performance, especially Neeson's and Thurman's.

Michael Collins (1996)

moving history

[9/10 · 28 March 1999]

This film is a moving history of the man Michael Collins, and it should be watched by any and all history buffs, whether interested in Irish history or not, as an example of how national heroes can be painted black even as they do what they know is best for their people.