Good of its kind

Rating: 2/10 (3 September 1999)

There are some movies that, at least for me, look like they'd work better as a comic book (or "graphic novel") than as a movie, that present an effective series of images but which raise untoward questions when real human actors have to convince viewers this is for real. "The Fifth Element" and "Men in Black" were two such movies--in fact, the former was partly designed by a comix artist, and the latter adapted from a comic book series.
I know of no graphic forerunners for "The Matrix", but I would group it with "comic book movies" of this sort. The good part is that it's quite a bit smarter than the usual CBM, with serious attention paid to the underpinnings of the plot and even an effort to get in some real science some of the time. The bad part is that the filmmakers haven't quite thought everything through. (SPOILER WARNING: skip to the next paragraph if you don't want to read this.) I liked very much Agent Smith's explanation of why the bad guys don't keep humanity complacent with a simulated utopia, chosing the late 20th century instead. On the other hand, if they need human bioelectricity as an energy source--in other words, if it's strictly human bodies they need--why don't they just scrap the simulation and lobotomize everybody? (Is it possible that they need fully developed human minds for some other reason? If so, why?) If the filmmakers had at least addressed this question, it would have added some backbone to the plot, which needs all the support it can get. Oh well, maybe they're saving it for the sequel.
Otherwise, the standard strengths and weaknesses of CBM's apply here. Forget the gunplay, explosions, and other such mayhem--throw an egg anywhere in a multiscreen theater these days, and you've got even chances of splatting into a movie featuring these prominently. Beyond that, "The Matrix" contains more than its fair share of stunning images, some disturbing, some mindbending, and a few both.
I had problems with the acting, though, or maybe it was the way the actors were directed. When descending into the Matrix, the good guys show almost no emotions at all. It's like since they know the Matrix isn't "real", they can't be bothered having any feelings about it. This fits with the plot, but makes it hard to identify with the characters. (Fortunately, everyone seems more human on the ship, a special relief in the case of the excellent actor Laurence Fishburne.)
The only actor to avoid this difficulty is Keanu Reeves, arguably because his character is struggling with the "reality" of the Matrix over the course of the film. You can almost watch him shedding emotions bit by bit as he gets control of the situation. (Frankly, I think he's more convincing and compelling as a fallible but highly competent hero of the sort he played in "Speed" than as a potential world-savior.)
The upshot: a good but not great film, well worth watching for its unique and compelling parts, but (my usual complaint) not what it could have been.