[Film] Most satisfying movie you have seen recently [2]

[Uriel Septim VII]

I have become a bigger fan of Herzog after having watched Grizzly Man today. Before, I looked at Treadwell's story as sentimental and manic (which it still is in a way), but after having seen the way he interacted with the foxes, I almost teared up. Herzog was very discreet in what he showed and what he opted not to, very much unlike a certain person from Michigan who cast John Candy in that one movie.



Thread had to be split because it was too long, here is the first 2000 posts: http://forum.evageeks.org/viewtopic.php?t=9594

[Bomby von Bombsville]

Wife! Be Like A Rose (Mikio Naruse)
A very good film. I was at first disappointed that we were not watching the Mizoguchi film we were promised, but it's always a good experience to be able to see Naruse, whose films somehow manage to be even more rare than Oshima's. Simply not fair, I say. I like Naruse's usage of tracking for impact, which seems to be a major unknown precursor to the current constant-motion-camera of Hollywood's intensified continuity system. Unlike intensified continuity, however, Naruse uses it sparingly, and only at the most crucial moments, making it an artistic device, rather than an ADD battling device.

[Eva Yojimbo]

Sylvia Scarlett [1935; George Cukor; 95 min; US]

7.5/10

SPOILER: Show

What a glorious mess of a film this is! When you see things like 1935, George Cukor, Hepburn and Grant you tend to expect films with immaculate narrative and visual craftsmanship, and I'm almost elated to say that Sylvia Scarlett utterly destroys that expectation. It's almost as if the producers had been given 5 different screenplays for 5 different films, and they couldn't decide which one(s) to do so someone came up with the brilliant idea to do all of them and stuff them into one film! I think I'm sentencing myself to death to try and provide a plot synopsis, but I'll do my best: Katherine Hepburn plays the young Sylvia whose mother has recently died and business failed. Her father, Henry (Edmund Gwenn), was caught embezzling money from the silk factory he works at, so the two hatch a plan to flee to England. For some reason, Henry thinks it will be to hard on Sylvia being a woman, so she changes her appearance to look like a man.

On the boat, Henry is smuggling silk to sell for capital when they reach England. He meets Jimmy Monkley (Carey Grant), the two get drunk and Henry reveals his plans. Jimmy turns him in, but, of course, the three are destined to meet shortly after on a train where Jimmy reveals that he did it so he could sneak his own contraband through and reimburses Henry for his losses. Soon after the three hatch a plan to swindle people out of their money by a street performance in which Hepburn (now as a boy) pretends to be a poor, unfortunate French youth. This doesn't work, so they escape to the mansion of some friend of Jimmy's. There they meet a vivacious and quirky maid named Maudie (Dennie Moore). They had planned to rob the mansion, but instead a drunk Sylvia (still as a boy) reveals their plan and instead the 4 decides to form a traveling musical troupe and Henry and Maudie fall in love. While performing they meet an aristocratic couple Michael Fane (Brian Aherne) and his Russian girlfriend Lily (Natalie Paley). After a disastrous party, Sylvia falls for Michael, Michael still think she's a he, Henry becomes obsessive and jealous over Maudie, while Jimmy falls for Lily.

Somehow over the course of the film we get a shocking and provocative (for the time) lesbian kiss between Hepburn and Moore, a tragic death, several incredibly awkward reveals that Hepburn is actually a woman, and a bizarre relationship switch-a-roo near the end. The cross-dressing stuff alone is practically Shakespearean, quite vividly reminding me of As You Like It, while the comedy is more Merry Wives of Windsor in tone. The film really has the narrative comprehension of an insane screwball comedy without the physical part of it. This is really the type of film I could've seen Howard Hawks pulling off more so than George Cukor. But if the film stretches itself to the point of collapse on a narrative front, it's hard to express the joyousness of watching Hepburn and Grant tear up the screen. Grant was one of the VERY few actors that could keep up with Hepburn at her prime. She may be the better actor but he arguably has even more energy. Here they're both cast somewhat against type, but especially Grant as a tough-talking swindler.

It's still a thoroughly enjoyable film from Hollywood's Golden Age. Definitely one of the quirkiest and oddest. But the charisma, energy, and sheer acting chops of its stars make up for it, even at its most dizzying heights of insanity.

Bloody Sunday [2002; Paul Greengrass; 105 min; UK, Ireland]

8.5/10

SPOILER: Show

On January 30, 1972 the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (IRA) marched through the streets of Derry to protest the treatment of the Roman Catholic minority in the face of the British Protestant majority in Ireland. The march came to a fatal end when British paratroopers opened fire on unarmed marchers, instantly killing 13 and wounding another 13 (one of which died several months later). The event has been dubbed Bloody Sunday and is the subject of both U2's song and Paul Greengrass' stunning film depicting the events. The march was lead by Ivan Cooper, a member of Parliament and played by James Nesbitt in the film. The movie continually cross-cuts between those who set up the march and took part in it, the organization of the British military behind the scenes, and the depiction of the paratroopers that set up perimeters around the march.

Sometimes I spend so much time preaching against the evils of shaky cam and the faux-documentary style of film-making that I forget how effective it can be in the hands of the right director and applied to the right film. Paul Greengrass may be the best director today (if not ever) at applying that method of film-making and perhaps in no other film is it more powerful than in Bloody Sunday. Here's a film based on real events in which the style serves to bring us so intimately into the events and the characters that it really feels like we're there. Bloody Sunday is a film that's almost unbearably, excruciatingly intense; especially when the bullets start flying and people start dying. But the film never becomes an indulgence in violence that provides pleasure for the audience. Rather it simply enhances the horror of the situation.

Bloody Sunday is an incredibly powerful, moving film about an important subject. It's one of those stories that had to be told and I can't imagine it being given a better treatment than in this stunning film.

===============================================

Fahrenheit 451 Stuff  SPOILER: Show

I actually have not seen Fahrenheit 451 yet, but most of what I've heard about it seems to agree with your numerical rating of it.

Well, it does have its fans. In fact, after watching the commentary and documentaries on the DVD I think perhaps I was a BIT too harsh on it. Annette Insdorf, whom I know very well from her Kieslowski criticism, did some of the commentary as well as some of the documentaries and she really placed F451 in an interesting context she termed Truffaut's "Hitchcock phase", which makes sense since Truffaut's book of interviews with Hitch was released the same year. As I rewatched it with the commentary there are certainly a ton of nods to Hitch, but it still seems like a very unsure film from Truffaut.

I once turned to a movie channel and saw the scene with the guys on jetpacks, and I said to myself, "There is no way this is a Traffaut movie." It's not even the genre or setting, but the tone and form.

Very true.

The film is actually a big irony considering a major theme of the book being the rejection of film. Bradbury basically says that only books can make one think about things. He makes no distinction between good films or bad films but jumbles all of them into a single category of nonthinking crap.

He certainly doesn't seem to have that attitude either in the commentary or in the interviews on the DVD. Maybe he's since changed his mind on the matter?

@ Xard  SPOILER: Show

One can always watch less films.

Now why would I want to go and do a crazy thing like that? Although, seriously, I'll probably have to slow it down soon. Either that or I'll have to cut down on writing reviews or insisting on catching up with EvaGeeks, IMDb, Film board, and LitNet every day. Or, ya know, stop eating and masturbating and stuff.

wat

Did I misinterpret the "I also realized how silly it is to write lengthy reviews of films since normal reaction is not to give a fuck"? That sounds awfully nihilistic...

I spent whole movie just concentrating on Kubrick's directing which led me to angsting about obnoxiously mundane editing patterns "assaulting" fortress of flawlessness every now and then.

I'll have to rewatch and pay attention but I really don't have anything against mundane editing patterns when they're used by master directors who aren't doing them out of convenience or laziness and Kubrick is NEVER lazy visually.

I'm by no means expert on action films since most of them (from what I've seen) either have sucked or have been very short on actual content.

I would definitely consider The Wild Bunch an action westerner. How about The Road Warrior, Die Hard, The French Connection, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Speed? You should also check out the films of John Woo.

@FreakyFilmFan: I gave both Laputa and Ghost in the Shell 9.5. I guess I enjoyed Laputa a bit more than you. I pretty much agree with Ghost in the Shell; a brilliant film that really shows off the potential of anime to be an artistically refined and intellectually demanding medium. Laputa for me is just Miyazaki's imagination going into overdrive.

@Bomby on Naruse: Where did you see that film? I really want to get those two box sets of Naruse from Amazon UK. It really is sad that there isn't more from Naruse (and Mizoguchi, and Oshima, and Ichikawa) on DVD. Have you ever seen Mizoguchi's Story of the Late Chrysanthemums? I know that's supposed to be one of his best of his earlier period and yet it's completely unavailable on DVD...

[Merridian]

John Woo

John Woo's overseas stuff rocks, for the most part. I don't want to sound like a purefag or whatever hip term it is, but once he came to Hollywood, his films started to suck. MI:2 sucked. Hard Target sucked. Windtalkers was decent, but not awesome. Paycheck I didn't even finish.

I've heard good things about Red Cliff (not Hollywood, but it is his most recent work), but these "good things" were from the same people that recommended SPL: Kill Zone and Flash Point--two films that had friggin incredible martial arts (Donnie Yen both doing AND directing choreography, so anything less than mind-blowingly intense is a physical impossibility), but were pretty awful films outside of that. The scripts were overridden with awful clichés and the directing was like an ultra-glitzy music video. I’m rather shocked that the same director that did those flicks worked on the phenomenal Ip Man, actually.

Hardboiled
John Woo one-ups the die hard series with this unforgettable action thriller, containing quite possibly the greatest long take in action film history, with enough respect due to the hallway fight in Oldboy.

YES. YES YES YES

[Bomby von Bombsville]

@Bomby on Naruse: Where did you see that film?

It was a VHS transfer that the media center at the University had made.

Have you ever seen Mizoguchi's Story of the Late Chrysanthemums?

That's the film we were actually supposed to be watching tonight, but they were creating their own custom DVD at the same media center that made aforementioned Naruse DVD and were having issues with it. Apparently, we will be able to see it around spring break.

Wait... I shouldn't be revealing this, should I?

John Woo's overseas stuff rocks, for the most part. I don't want to sound like a purefag or whatever hip term it is, but once he came to Hollywood, his films started to suck. MI:2 sucked. Hard Target sucked. Windtalkers was decent, but not awesome. Paycheck I didn't even finish.

EXCUSE ME FACE/OFF?

...

Actually, I've never seen Face/Off but I've heard it's actually not that bad..

And Red Cliff is, in fact, pretty good. Part II especially.

[Merridian]

^ neither have I, which is why I didn't mention it. But it has two of my least-favorite actors (Cage & Travolta), so I kinda avoided it anyway. Nice to hear good things about Red Cliff, tho'; I'll probably watch it soon, but I have no idea when.

[Oz]

I have a feeling that right now, BJH and I just aren't clicking. That happens sometimes.

This is the most likely case. Bong is very similar to Park in my opinion - though I would say he doesn't succeed in drama as well as Park does.

Bloody Sunday [2002; Paul Greengrass; 105 min; UK, Ireland]

8.5/10

The shaky-cam was bloody awful in that film. Even simple scenes of walking were so shaky that I felt awfully dizzy even before the action started. Even though the story is an important one to tell, I thought the film descended into simple and over-the-top sentimentality too easily.

I once turned to a movie channel and saw the scene with the guys on jetpacks, and I said to myself, "There is no way this is a Traffaut movie." It's not even the genre or setting, but the tone and form.

So true.

I think Bong Joon-Ho is a filmmaker whose films generally take a second viewing to really 'get.'

QFT!

Actually, I've never seen Face/Off but I've heard it's actually not that bad..

It is actually quite good although it has been a long time since I saw it. By the way, your action film list was awesome.

---

I watched All About Lily Chou-Chou for the second time and this time I wrote a readable review of it. I also rewatched Terry Gilliam's Brazil and wrote a brief review.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

I gave both Laputa and Ghost in the Shell 9.5. I guess I enjoyed Laputa a bit more than you. I pretty much agree with Ghost in the Shell; a brilliant film that really shows off the potential of anime to be an artistically refined and intellectually demanding medium. Laputa for me is just Miyazaki's imagination going into overdrive.

Miyazaki is a wonderful filmmaker with incredible imagination, but occasionally the pacing of his movies kinda bugs me. At times I find that when he draws out a movie longer than it should be it actually adds to the movie's creditability, at other times I feel like the movie should have been over by now... and yet it never makes me think poorly of the film or it's maker. I've never seen preference positively effect film in such vast differences as Miyazaki's films.

As for Ghost in the Shell, that's easily one of my favorite movies ever (if I ever get around to actually making a list). I really want to see it's sequel, Innocence.

------------------------

The Matrix [U.S.; Sci-Fi; The Wachowski Brothers; 136 mins]

8.5/10

SPOILER: Show

One of the things I liked about the Wachowski Brothers when they first started is that they were trying to come out of left field with something that people aren’t used to seeing. Unfortunately, it caused them to be flat-out pretentious or just plain silly in their more recent movies.

The Matrix is the Brother’s first feature length film, and one almost can’t tell. Everything is handled so precisely that at first I thought I was dealing with experienced directors. It’s a film where machines and man are at war. A man named Morpheus leads a group of people to find the prophesied man who can help humans win out the battle.[spoiler]It’s also the only movie I’ve seen where what basically amounts to a software engineer appears to be cool and dangerous.

Yes, it’s an action movie. But it’s also so much more. The film also explores a series of metaphors that help flesh out the more intellectual side of the movie, using a strong sense of stylization to help blend the two different elements together. And everything from the lighting and cinematography to the editing techniques and special effects give a very gritty, yet synthetic atmosphere to the picture that carries strong undertones to the storytelling of the movie.

The only minor objection I have to The Matrix is that because everything, including performances, is so stylized, one finds it hard to relate to the characters. But the plot is so well developed and realized that it almost doesn’t matter (Almost.)[/spoiler]

The Matrix Reloaded [U.S.; Sci-Fi; The Wachowski Brothers; 138 mins]

5/10

SPOILER: Show

The sequel to the acclaimed Matrix film seems to have lost that delicate balance between intellectuality and action. It’s almost as if it cuts between an exciting ad redline rush action flick and a college philosophy class.

Zion, the underground land of the living as it were, is under threat of being attacked by the advancing mechanical army from the surface. And Morpheus and his group again have to save the world with their One Neo guy. The Wachowski Brothers certainly explored more of the world they created for The Matrix, but a lot of it was executed in dialogue poorly handled scenes with stuffy performance stylizations or just plain bad acting.

But there’s something to be said about the action scenes in the crazy, mixed-up world of the Matrix. The freeway scene alone saved this movie from being completely boring. Yet even in the areas in the climax where Neo “jumps the shark” in ways that even suggest plot holes.

Plot Holes Like The One in This  SPOILER: Show

When Trinity’s falling to her death, I don’t see how catching her at the speed of a small fighter jet is less harmful than her hitting the ground. (”Well, it’s the Matrix see. And Neo can pretty much do whatever he wants blah blah blah”)

The Matrix Revolution [U.S.; Sci-Fi; The Wachowski Brothers; 129 mins]

4.5/10

SPOILER: Show

The machines are still on their way to attack Zion. This time, there might actually be a war or something. The citizens of in underground city of Zion are forced into mortal combat with deadly machines from the surface world as Morpheus and his group try to get their One Neo guy to make peace between man and machine.[spoiler]I tell you, it’s tough being the coolest software engineer in existence.

This film bites the bullet and finally becomes the philosophy class that the was merely hinted at in Reloaded. You know it’s bad when the things happening in Zion are more exciting than the whole world-bending atmosphere inside the Matrix, with most of it only coming off as gimmickry or just plain boring.

The sense of stylization can now only be found it the films' visuals, as now whatever stylization were in the performances or cast just seem like bad acting.

And the intellectuality that seems to permeate the film can only best be enjoyed through the visual motifs rather than the long, drawn out dialogue scenes that only made it seem pretentious.[/spoiler]

[THE Hal E. Burton 9000]

The Matrix [U.S.; Sci-Fi; The Wachowski Brothers; 136 mins]

SPOILER: Show

It’s also the only movie I’ve seen where what basically amounts to a software engineer appears to be cool and dangerous.

SPOILER: Show

I take it you've never seen Office Space

[Oz]

SPOILER: Show

I take it you've never seen Office Space

Office Space is awesome, by the way.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

The Matrix [U.S.; Sci-Fi; The Wachowski Brothers; 136 mins]

SPOILER: Show

It’s also the only movie I’ve seen where what basically amounts to a software engineer appears to be cool and dangerous.

SPOILER: Show

I take it you've never seen Office Space

SPOILER: Show

Correct, I have not.

[THE Hal E. Burton 9000]

^

SPOILER: Show

well, there you go

it's pretty good, you should see it, and see what I mean

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

^

SPOILER: Show

I just might...

[Bomby von Bombsville]

Robocop (Paul Verhoeven)
Premise: Some whiteboy gets fucked up, then gets turned into a robot and fucks a bunch of other whiteboys up. It was entertaining. I think the film was supposed to be making some sort of political statement about advertising or violence or something but I'm not quite sure what it was. The action sequences weren't bad, though.

Up Next, I'll watch and review a movie by my mortal enemy, Kwak Jae-Yong. Kwak is barely able to contain his excitement:

"I have a mortal enemy from Bombay?"

[Eva Yojimbo]

Jigoku [1960; Nobuo Nakagawa; 100 min; Japan]

6.0/10

SPOILER: Show

Awesome screencap is awesome  SPOILER: Show

Jigoku is a visually inventive but narratively incomprehensible horror film made by Nobuo Nakagawa for the infamous Shintoho studio. Shintoho produces provocative, low budget films that would be considered the equivalent of American B-movies and Nakagawa was one of their star film-makers. Unfortunately, Jigoku was made near the end of the studio's run. It's about a young theology student named Shiro who is part of a hit-and-run with his friend and doppelganger Tamura. When the two end up in an old folk's home where Shiro's mom is staying it soon becomes clear that everyone is guilty of some past sin. After being poisoned by wine and fish, everyone in the home goes to hell (Jigoku) and are forced to face their punishments.

The film really doesn't get interesting until the characters finally enter Hell. Filmed in one of Sinthoho's biggest studios, the film's version of hell is one of utter blackness punctuated by the minimally lighted sets. The effect is one of a surrealist film. In fact, I think the film would've worked better as a surrealist, experimental piece rather than as a seemingly straight-forward narrative. It's really the narrative elements in which the film crosses the line from imaginative to cheesy and laughable. Especially when Shiro is trying to reach/find his infant child and dead wife and we get long sequences of them calling each others' names incessantly. Really, it's a film where the visuals could've spoken infinitely better than any of the inserted dialogue.

Really, Jigoku is a film of moments. Even when memorable, such as the spinning wheel of fire, the judge of hell, the torture scenes, and the field of sharp, icy stalagmites, it seems more effective as abstracts rather than as part of an overall narrative. If you can get past the cheesiness and have a taste for some low-budget but interesting art-design and torture then Jigoku is a worthwhile watch.

===============================================
:omnislash_warning:

Replies  SPOILER: Show

I don't want to sound like a purefag or whatever hip term it is, but once he came to Hollywood, his films started to suck.

I know you said you hadn't seen it, but Face/Off is EXCELLENT. One of the great pure action films to ever come out of Hollywood. I didn't think MI:2 was bad. FWIW, Ebert liked it a lot better than the original, though I think the original was more in tune with the original series.

Bong is very similar to Park in my opinion - though I would say he doesn't succeed in drama as well as Park does.

I wouldn't say he succeeds in the visual arena either. Neither of the Bong films I've seen are as striking as anything in Park's Vengeance Trilogy.

The shaky-cam was bloody awful in that film.

I entirely disagree and you know I'm someone who doesn't innately like shaky-cam. But I felt the documentary style brought a palpable realism to that film. When the violence started I felt almost too uncomfortably like I was THERE. It's also worth noting that the majority of scenes were played in incredibly long takes using the streets almost like a huge stage and the cameraman had to intuitively capture the action as it was happening. The editing hides this fact but I really think it's what gives it a power and immediacy that most film lack that try to appropriate the technique only as a cheap gimmick; especially when it doesn't fit or isn't appropriate given the subject matter. But given the naturalism of the performances and setting it's as close as I've ever seen any film get to seeming as if it was actually capturing events as they happened where they were happening.

Plus, there are some wonderfully subtle visual moments that's easy to miss. There's one scene in which the camera stays locked on Maclellan's face as people file out of the room and many more where the focus shifts really do a great job at narrating some complex staging.

I thought the film descended into simple and over-the-top sentimentality too easily.

Errr, where? The actual Ivan Cooper oversaw much of the production and said himself that the film eerily brought back memories of that day. Remember that all the action is taking place over 24 hours, so the emotional reactions would've been precisely like that. You can't speak of sentimentality when it's an accurate representation of actual events.

I watched All About Lily Chou-Chou for the second time and this time I wrote a readable review of it. I also rewatched Terry Gilliam's Brazil and wrote a brief review.

Nice review of Lily Chou which you know I loved as well though I guess I wasn't quite as affected. It certainly has some powerful moments, though. Brazil is a lot of fun. I really should watch that again someday.

Miyazaki is a wonderful filmmaker with incredible imagination, but occasionally the pacing of his movies kinda bugs me.

Can't say it's ever bugged me, but I haven't seen most of his in years either. I did see Laputa recently and I didn't know anything wrong with its pacing. Yeah, it speeds up and slows down a lot, but I don't think it's done sloppily or jarringly.

I pretty much agree with your Matrix reviews. I gave the first an 8.5 too, though I gave the sequels 6s I think. I dunno, I guess I just approached them as more mystical action films and wasn't really bothered as much as others by the... I dunno... laziness, sloppiness, call it what you want. I always said I think the Wachowski's were surprised at the success and kinda panicked when they felt they had to write two more films.

BTW, a minor correction: The Matrix wasn't The Wachowski's first film. Before it they directed a Hitchcockian thriller called Bound which was actually quite excellent in its own right. It shows they have tremendous talent even when they're not tackling SFX extravaganzas.

Robocop (Paul Verhoeven)

That's a fun film and a favorite from childhood. I remember the acid scene always freaked me out. Supposedly, Verhoeven's pre-Hollywood stuff is supposed to be much better.

[THE Hal E. Burton 9000]

Robocop was originally envisioned as a more action-packed (and dumbed down) Blade Runner

Verhoeven however, after being persuaded by his wife, decided to make the film but with some satirical twists, such as the degree that corporate culture is completely corrupting American society, along with the extent that society is willing to allow violence to desensitize them to such random destruction

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

BTW, a minor correction: The Matrix wasn't The Wachowski's first film. Before it they directed a Hitchcockian thriller called Bound which was actually quite excellent in its own right. It shows they have tremendous talent even when they're not tackling SFX extravaganzas.

I've heard of it, but never seen it myself. But I was under the impression that it was a short film. Hm... 108 minutes. Guess not. You're right. I'm gonna have to tack that into my "to watch" list.

As for Miyazaki, I don't think the pacing appears to be sloppy either. But that doesn't keep some of his films from being rather irregular without having a clear reason to be. I learned that with his earlier works that he actually started "writing" his films by simply drawing storyboards then just making it up as he went along. The results are amazing, but it does explain some of the irregularity in the pacing.

[Gendo'sPapa]

BOUND might be my personal favorite Wachowski Siblings film.

I've heard rumors that the film was made because they Wachowski's were going around trying to get financing for their script to the original Matrix. Apparently a lot of studios liked the concept but wanted to drastically realter it to work more for mainstream audiences- I.E. Dump it down and probably cast Arnold Schwarzenneger as Neo.
Joel Silver really wanted to make the film but the Wachowski's refused to let anyone else direct the film. So Silver's offer was "Go make a film and prove to me you can direct and you got the job." The Wachowski's wrote BOUND (lots of sex, violence, and leather) and Dino De Laurentiis produced it (this is before the old coot turned Hannibal Lecter into an effeminate French Samurai in that atrocious prequel) and the rest was leather heavy history.

[Eva Yojimbo]

Interesting story about Bound, GP. It may be my favorite from them as well, though it's impossible to compare to The Matrix films. I think I originally watched it because I was more interested in seeing Jennifer Tilly's lesbian scene with Gena Gershon more so than I was interested in The Wachowski's, but it was actually great on all fronts (I could make a joke there, but I won't). I especially loved Joe Pantoliano and the neo-noir style. The commentary was quite hilarious too; at least when Tilly showed up.

[THE Hal E. Burton 9000]

the original Matrix <snip> Apparently a lot of studios liked the concept but wanted to drastically realter it to work more for mainstream audiences- I.E. Dump it down and probably cast Arnold Schwarzenneger as Neo.

WOW

that would kind of be like Total Recall or something, so so weird

I do know that Will Smith was the initial choice for Neo, Sandra Bullock was originally going to play Trinity and Sean Connery was going to be Morpheus

just imagine THAT insanity for a second