I saw it this afternoon, I enjoyed it. The plot was thin, the action scenes were fun, and Halle did okay for an old broad. The Oriental-looking gang leader had the best lines.
"He one of yours?"
"He was."
"Give me a minute, let me catch my breath."
I have to wonder if the cast sits around, drinks beer and watches the outtakes after the day's shooting. That'd be fun! Nah, they probably just want to get cleaned up and go home.
After pondering that my point will be odious in the sight of some, nonetheless, I decided to opine in the pursuit of venturing from my hermitage:
I continue the be negatively impressed that those who (seemingly) profess serious pursuits would find themselves attracted in any fashion to such drivel.
The Minority Marksman.
"When you meet a swordsman, draw your sword: Do not recite poetry to one who is not a poet."
-a Ch'an Buddhist axiom.
It is possible to be serious most of the time but still enjoy things which are silly. The fact that the base premise of the movies is absurd does not negate the fact that Keanu Reeves' portrayal of the main character makes me smile, or that action sequences which are basically USPSA and/or 3-gun stages set to awesome music make me smile. If those things do not make you smile, then I understand why you don't like the series, but holding yourself up as somehow morally superior to those who enjoy it is pretty lame.
I find the elevation of a character whose heroic status is inextricably linked to that of a professional criminal to be an overdone genre that has nothing in common with “moral superiority”. I said, for the record, that I was positively unimpressed.
I am confused why considering something as unserious frivolity is conflated with moral arrogance.
Finally, just as a matter of logic, if nothing is (as you are wont to term it) “morally superior”, then how can anyone’s opinion be wrong? Either there is a gradation or there is not; if nothing is morally superior, then nothing is wrong.
Actually, what you said was that you were "negatively impressed" by people who find themselves "attracted to such drivel." If that's not equivalent to saying "I'm better than you because I think that the entertainment which you enjoy is dumb," then I don't know what is. That's what I meant when I talked about you holding yourself up as being morally superior. People enjoy all kinds of different things. I'm not shitting on you for enjoying only the most serious of dramatic films (or whatever your personal favorite(s) may be); I just think that it's pretty lame for you to shit on people simply because they enjoy a series of films that you don't like.
Is there no one that negatively impresses you without implicating any sort of “moral superiority”?
I find your conflation of two specific and different (with distinctions) positions to be confusing to the conversation.
For example, I might hold that someone is either intellectually my superior or inferior, and be positively or negatively impressed, with zero implication upon any morality on their part. You seem to be conflating the two.
I think we're all pretty much in agreement that the movie is "unserious frivolity". That's why it's called fantasy. You come off as arrogant when you tell us that you're unimpressed with people attracted to this "drivel". We enjoy it because of the cool guns and the suspension-of-disbelief fight scenes. You don't have to share our enjoyment, just don't look down your nose at us. That may not have been your intent, but it sure sounded like it.