Matrix Code - The Matrix Vs. Lord of the Rings Vs. Star Wars

Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Dramatic tale of good and evil. Legendary fantasy. Epic adventure. Fearless heroes. Vivid beauty. Sweeping landscapes. Mind-blowing visuals. Valliant battles. Subverted homosexuality.

Say what you want about the movie. But what you can't say is that it was about heterosexuals. Not that the film's sexual orientation took away from its quality or anything. It was still a gripping adventure and a visual masterpiece. But anyone who thinks Frodo wasn't taking punches in the pants is kidding himself.

Just look at the subtext. I'll grant you, very little of the homosexuality was out in the open. But look a little closer and you'll find gayness aplenty. Let's start with the hobbits. These hedonistic creatures were as close to openly gay as the movie gets. They were into frolicking and prancing and group sex. They were always hiding in the bushes together and giggling. They gathered in the Shire to sing, dance, and play games like White Cracker and Elephant Walk. The hobbit birthday party scene was like Sunday night at Manhole. And you know what they say about hairy feet.

Then there's Gandalf the Pervy. He was nothing but a creepy old man who delighted in leering at the little barefoot hobbit boys. In a modern tale, he'd be waiting by the playground in a van with tinted windows. The hobbits shrieked excitedly when Gandalf came to town, begging him to "do some magic tricks" and to show them his "firecracker". Gandalf had a very questionable relationship with his walking stick, which he referred to as his "third leg". When he was not gripping it, he was letting the hobbits rub it for good luck.

The elves (a.k.a. fairies) were another group of folks whose homosexuality was not deeply suppressed. These well-manicured, ivory-skinned, phallic-eared, snappily-dressed beings were way too vain to be straight. They all lived and bathed together in a chubby-friendly commune. Just off-screen, they were waxing their thighs, watching old Tony Curtis movies, and drinking each other's semen. Plus, they all lived with Cate Blanchett, yet nobody was boning her. Gay.

The humans, not surprisingly, were the most latent homosexuals of all Middle-earth. These overly-rugged, overly-butch, overly-warring homophobes spent every frame trying desperately to prove their masculinity to everyone. Yet inside, they were yearning to be touched like the handle of a broadsword. They wielded their weapons like extensions of their manhood, poking and prodding and fighting everything in sight. Unable to deal with their desire for homosex in a healthy way, they let their dormant sexuality build up into a feverish frenzy. Raised by intolerant fathers, their only outlet was violence, taking out their aggression from the safety of their closets.

What else? The One Ring, too big to fit Frodo's finger, was clearly a cock ring. Since the ring had so many previous bearers, nobody wanted to touch it, for fear of disease. The uruk-hai creatures were formed by mating orcs with humans. Yet curiously, there were no female orcs or humans around. The only answer is gay male sex. The title, "The Fellowship of the Ring" is an obvious reference to a circle jerk. Finally, big bad villain Sauron was represented as a giant diabolical glowing red clitoris. It was the film's not-so-subtle way of stating that women are evil. The only real heterosexual in the movie was Gimli, the manly dwarf. However, he had other issues to deal with. He was forced to overcompensate for his tiny dwarfish penis with his gigantic battle axe.

Well, if you can take your one-track minds out of Boys Town for just a moment, we can examine other aspects of the film. If you're a J.R.R. Tolkien fan, this movie will make you cream your cheese. Visually speaking, it is a work of art. It's a feast for the eye, every frame superb and stunning. I commend the relatively inexperienced Peter Jackson for his vision and his perfectionism (speaking of Jackson, he's no stranger to implied homosexuality; see his film Heavenly Creatures for a blatant example of quiescent lesbianism). The film itself was very good, but predictably, over-hyped. As a stand-alone movie, the story struggled. Bound by the book, the story ended at a very forced and awkward place. The script ignored one of the first rules of screenwriting: Time Frame. For the viewer, there was little sense of urgency or deadline, and we didn't know when to expect a climax (because there wasn't one). But as a trilogy, I'm sure this film will fit remarkably, and the entire series will be fantastic. It does not deserve an Oscar nomination for Best Picture, however, even in this extremely weak year. It got a Golden Globe nomination, sure, because the Foreign Press is easily wowed by Horse And Pony Shows. I will admit, though, Jackson deserves a Best Director nomination for wrapping his arms around this behemoth. The movie was unwaveringly true to the book. Even toker Tolkien's drug references (smoking weeds, eating mushrooms, hobbits with the munchies) were included. The only disappointing portion exorcised from the book was the chapter where the hobbits cavort and romp in the Field of Buttplugs.

The acting was not remarkable, but it was at the very least adequate. Elijah Wood, Ian McKellan, Ian Holm, and Cate Blanchett all did well in their roles. Sean Astin, as the hobbit that ate Rudy, turned in his best work since Encino Man. Hugo Weaving, in the role of... well, I'm not sure, because I couldn't mentally remove him from The Matrix. He was good in The Matrix, though. And Viggo Mortensen, the most expendable actor on the planet, as cowardly Aragorn the Pussy, was pitiful. And thats just the first movie.

I won't get started on how much of a trainwreck the Matrix films were. Nothing like being a Sci-Fi film with either no Sci, or at best, comic book physics. Had it been left at one movie it would stand as one of the greats from that time but the trilogy is about as much fun to watch as an abortion.

I see that you listed Star Wars, and I see that you are talking about trilogys, so I can only assume you would consider the old movies on trilogy and the new movies a second, sepperate trilogy. Probably a good idea. Aside from the fuckinf Ewoks, the old series is pretty good. Good writing, good acting, decent directing, nice effects. The new series is the complete opposite of that.