h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'd like to know how a two hour movie can feel like it lasted for three? Almost every fight scene lasted 10 times longer than it should have (granted, the first 5 agent Smiths were pretty cool but do we REALLY need to sit there while 300 more show up - AAAAAAAHHHHHH). Even some scenes with dialogue had me squirming in my seat.

The "big revelation" at the end - sigh, does it make it seem more important or ominous if you litter the dialogue with big, impressive sounding words? A few teenage kids in the lobby afterward were quite lost (I hope this is a product of their age and not our educational system).

For once, I'd like to see a movie that hasn't revealed its best effects, stunts, and/or dialogue in the previews/trailers. Watching the previews before this movie was like watching 5 or 6 mini-movies, they practically hand you the whole plot! This might not actually be a bad thing since 90% of Hollywood movies these days are total crap.

But I digress, back to this stinker. There were a few tense moments during the action but the conversations failed to move me. The "movers and shakers" in Zion struck me as being too much like politicians in Washington, not the leaders of just about the last chance humanity might have on this planet. Bickering and petty rivalries do not make for an engaging story. Stuff like that is better suited to soap operas or reality TV shows . Why is "the headstrong opponent" in a movie always so unwilling to compromise? Give me a break!

I say "a few tense moments" because being Part II of III, we practically KNOW that the major players/stars are going to survive. I think it was a big mistake to let on that a third movie was in the works.

Apparently, in trying to be bold or take the movie in a new direction, they've shattered a few notions set down in the first movie. I think it would have been nice to have a few constants in such a world but maybe that's the point; make the story so convoluted that a 3rd movie is required to straighten things out.

I agree with Methos, it's high time we had a sequel worth watching!

God, I'm glad somebody agreed with me - besides the four friends I was in the cinema with.

And that scene after Neo's talk with Cassandra when all those Smiths show up - hello, I just knew he would just up and fly away at some point. So why wait so long?

I also wondered how clever it is to take the first scene in the movie into the trailer. I mean for me it was like "Oh The Matrix begins - wait, I already know that scene!" So not good.

>>The "movers and shakers" in Zion struck me as being too much like politicians in Washington, not the leaders of just about the last chance humanity might have on this planet. Bickering and petty rivalries do not make for an engaging story. Stuff like that is better suited to soap operas or reality TV shows . Why is "the headstrong opponent" in a movie always so unwilling to compromise? Give me a break!<<

Absolutely. After the first movie I had the feeling that "Zion" was kind of an enclave where all people who got out of the Matrix gathered together. I never imagined it to be so old-fashioned in its hierarchy and stuff like that.

Methos

If you lived in a computer simulated reality, maybe the films would be better.

(sequels would still suck, though!)

Who knows... Although really I can't say "Matrix" inspired me to question the reality of the realitiy I live in. Other movies did a better job there.

Methos