How Can Anyone Watch The Matrix More Than One Time?

Rating: 3/10 (14 April 2007)

I may spend more time writing this comment than any of the 26 others I have completed for IMDb. For one thing, I really need to examine why I have such a totally negative view of this movie, which many others adore so. I do think they must either be 12-year-olds, or older folk with their mental development permanently stunted, stuck forever at the 12-year-old level. Sorry, but that's really the way I feel about anyone who raves about "The Matrix". It is sad that I'll spend (waste) my time in this way.
Certainly, there are worse movies in the same genre. One example is "Equilibrium," which has achieved the dubious distinction being one of only two films, the other being "Bloody Sunday," with my "2 out of 10" rating. Only "Narc" got a lower rating (obviously, a "1") in my list of IMDb voted-on films. I think that pegs The Matrix at a "3", although that may indeed be too generous.
I think Keanu Reeves is, generally, a good actor, although many, if not most, of the films in which he has appeared do scant justice to what acting ability he possesses. "Speed" comes to mind; a very bad movie. And Reeves definitely comes off as badly in The Matrix as he did in Speed. On the other hand, the relatively unknown film "Johnny Mnemonic," although it obviously falls far short of fulfilling the wild vision of William Gibson's fine short story, gets at least my mild applause; Reeves was as good as he gets in that film, I think. And, guess what? For his Johnny Mnemonic effort, Reeves was nominated for the Razzie Award, as worst actor of the year!
I don't know what you call the genre, if only one exists, for The Matrix and Equilibrium. Science Fiction? Cyber-Noir? Impossible Future-Fantasy Kung-Fu? "Dark City," I think, also belongs to this indeterminate genre, but Dark City resides at the best end of its spectrum, as opposed to the other two, which are so abysmally bad they inspire nausea in me. The stunningly beautiful images of Dark City stand in huge contrast to the formulaic shallowness of The Matrix. Well, there can be no comparison, really. Dark City is a great film; The Matrix just isn't. I will try to explain why I have these starkly-opposed opinions...
I believe there ought to be at least three criteria for rating any film: Screenplay, Acting, and Production. Of the three, Acting must be at least a bit more important than the other two. Good acting can go far towards rescuing marginal writing or poor production. And bad acting can absolutely ruin an otherwise excellent story and image.
The Matrix: The acting is unconvincing. Screenplay: Shallow, displaying no redeeming or memorable story. Production: Dominated by gratuitous special effects, which have little relation to furthering what story there is.
I just decided to drop this project. The Matrix deserves no more of my time. 3 out of 10. Finis.