The Matrix didn't generate too much discussion
I wasn't really "around" when it came out, so I don't know, but I do know that it's frequently analyzed or referenced in the academic world. It's a wonderful film in that its components can be twisted around to fit just about any conception of reality ever developed; from Plato's Allegory of the Cave to an allegory of the Lacanian Real.
nor did The Matrix Revolutions...
The ending's pretty clear cut in what happens but not in why. How was Neo able to see and destroy sentinel's for example? As to what the stuff that was "pumped" into Neo at the end was (that destroyed the Smiths), it might have just been electricity.
It's rather hard to come up with these answers based only on what you've seen, so I prefer to "use" the philosophical framework, whichever, in order to extrapolate a possible meaning to these unexplained "physical" phenomenon. If we go the Lacanian route, then Neo being able to see the orange light without eyes could simply be a suggestion that the Real is capable of being contacted, if you choose to understand what he sees as the underlying "virtual" framework of reality itself, that is, apart from the matrix.
nor did The Matrix Revolutions...
but
The Matrix Reloaded did, because the ending seemed to open the series up for a number of possible endings (it didn't really go with any of them, of course).[/quote]The whole Architect scene really impressed me as being extreme fecund for some sort of further look. What he says seems quite clear, but if you think about it, it's really not. I'd like to take another look at that one day.
I find the really great, classic films don't necessarily provoke a lot of discussion. Sometimes, they're good in very simple ways that don't lend themselves to conversation.
You'd be surprised. Both
Birth of a Nation and
The Jazz Singer are on the AFI 100 list. Also, I don't think you'll find a lot of consistent agreement on what Hitchcock's best is.
Barring discussions about intentional ambiguities, like
Inception for example, there are some rather fun ambiguities that arise unintentionally. For example, did Bogie and Ingrid Bergman really "do it" during
Casablanca? All signifiers point to a somewhat obvious "yes", but it interesting to note that nothing definitive is actually presented in the film.
it should be the movie "W" but sadly it isnt.
The ideology in this film is rather muddled, so yeah, it should. We don't ever get a really clear sense of what Stone is criticizing until the scene where Cheney is explicitly shown advocating invasion on the basis of oil. W himself seems to be presented as a pretty normal fellow who is not especially bad in any sense, even intellectually, but Cheney seems to shown as the real villain. I'm not sure why this is such a popular view, but something makes me think that it's unwise to brush it all off on one person and make W as much a victim as the American people.