HELP! I'm in some techno-club nightmare - get me OUT!!!

Rating: Null/10 (29 March 2010)

THE MATRIX was an important movie, in that it was the 1st movie to usher in, and (CORRECTLY!) use the (at the time) new CGI on such a massive level.
It WAS a visually breath-taking film.
Due to the age-old 'bean-counters' who saw the money rolling in, they said 'hey - let's milk this 'Matrix' for as much as possible.' I'm sure that if given enough time to fully work out a coherent story that furthers the story of the first film, and expands on the CGI effects, the two subsequent films RELOADED, and REVOLUTIONS could have been something AWESOME.
As it is.....they're not. Enough time's passed since these film were released to look at them NOT through rose-tinted specs, and be honest in critiquing them.
One film franchise to compare the MATRIX trilogy with is the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy. Both of these film-trilogy's had similar backgrounds to work with - a large cast that was needed (for the most part) to be available for an extended filming period, and complicated stories that - while they all link together, should also be able to hold up independently. They both involved creating largely artificial worlds for their stories. These films also were made in the same part of the decade, but where one succeeds, the others falls apart. As I said - I'm speaking with that wonderful ability; HIND-SIGHT.
The 2 MATRIX follow-ups continue the 1st film's story (yes, everyone's familiar with it; humanity lost a war with the machines, they're kept alive for their use of 'energy' the machines need, and some humans - realising that the world's an illusion, try to fight back).
Alfred Hitchcock explained that he used a 'macguffin' to propel his stories - that is, something everyone watching the film THINKS is the MAIN point of the story, but it's really just a ruse for what's REALLY going on.
I bring Hitchcock up because the latter-2 MATRIX films contain so many 'macguffins - so much padding, that if this 'fat' was trimmed off, what would be left COULDN'T sustain the 3 films, but COULD (maybe) sustain 1 LONG, or 2 films.
A prime example of this padding is the infamous extended 'rave' sequence in this film. A scene that goes on far too long, and (honestly) doesn't move the story ahead. It's the film equivalent of being given a 1000-word paper to write, and after finding your short by a lot, starting to add MORE adjectives, repeating these pointless adjectives (e.g.; Mount Everest is a very, very, very, VERY tall mountain...').
And where the first MATRIX film's use of 'bullet-time' caused many jaws to drop, there is no radically new/different effect in the succeeding 2 films use of CGI. I know that there are going to be many who take offence at what I'm saying - missing the whole, deep 'meaning,' but I'm NOT discussing the MESSAGE, I'm discussing HOW that message was DELIVERED.
It also seems that by the time they film makers got around to making REVOLUTIONS and RELOADED, the box office on the first film being as big as it was, decided to 'amp-up' the product placements' - the eye wear especially.
Many critics have said how this film is a good film for Keanu Reeves' (limited) emotional range. It's sad, but, even Keanu seems like he's wading in muck. It's cartoon acting to an extreme, and when all is said and done, both RELOADED and REVOLUTIONS will NOT be remembered as much as the first film will be.