Surpassed Expectations or Disgusted Patrons?

Rating: 8/10 (6 June 2003)

What is going on with this movie? Honestly, I'm unsure.
This movie is neither as good as those who type with caps lock down insist it is (U HAVE TO GO SEE THIS FILM OR U R DUMB!) nor as bad as the cynics claim. It does seem to diverge significantly from the first one, but more on that later.
Ebert is right. The "philosophy" is far too shallow to try to analyze. They seem to touch on a lot of free will/determinist issues somehow aligning free-will with humans and determinism with machines, than questioning those notions, than questioning those questions. As Plato demonstrated, dialogue is necessary in the search for wisdom, but I think we need better lines than "you mean...programs hacking programs?" It is bizarre how for the first half-hour of the Matrix Neo was portrayed as very intelligent, until the brother's W decided making him an idiot would force the supporting characters to have to explain everything to him, and thus stripped him of his intelligence. Somehow, though, I feel as if the first movie was genuinely intelligent for at least the first two acts.
I agree that the political intriguing in Zion seems pretty unnecessary, though we will have to see what sort of effect it has when the third movie comes out. It might prove to be worthwhile after all.
The Link backstory however there is no need for. Where was the backstory for Apoc or Dozer in the first movie? It wasn't there because it detracts. Oh, and message to the W brothers: consciously acknowledging how stupid Neo looks flying doesn't excuse presenting it in such a ridiculous fashion.

CGI does not look real. Does anyone else think that special effects peaked with the original Star Wars trilogy? I would have much rather seen a stunt double.
Was Monica Bellucci attractive in this film or what? I have trouble believing a woman like that could have difficulty finding a man who would be passionately attracted to her.
The 100 Agent Smiths. What a great idea on paper. Really, imagine sitting around a room and one of the Watchowski's goes "let's have Neo fight an infinite number of Smith's" it must have sounded hilarious. But yes, it does look very boring.
I generally liked the Architect scene. That alone was worth at least a couple bucks.
As far as the "cliffhanger" ending. It was not a cliffhanger at all. What is left unfinished -- that we don't know the fate of zion? The third movie has to be about something. Also, consider the first movie which quite obviously leaves even more unfinished. Some people do not understand the function of the middle part of a trilogy. It has to leave room for a third movie. Go check out the empire strikes back. It has virtually the same ending! The claim that this is the first half of a two part movie is ridiculous. It attempts and succeeded at fulfilling its story arc.
The love scene & the rave scene. Gratuitous? Pandering? That certainly seems to be the case. I have heard that the dubya's threw it in as an attempt to appeal to the female population. I have to question anyone's intentions who simultaneously seeks to appeal to 10 year old boys and adult females, but really is this not symptomatic of a general trend towards more skin in our culture? Is this really anything new? Are we not already living in a civilization where sex sells and money is the body line? I suppose now is not the time or place to discuss such nevertheless pertinent issues.

So, to rate the Matrix on a scale of 1-10 I would point out that it is a matter of perspective. It is neither an all out masterpiece (A La Jesse Ventura's Abraxas Guardian of the Universe) nor a complete bomb (Jean Luc Goddard's Leon).
On a scale of 1/10 I give it a "vague".