It tries so hard to be more than it is

Rating: 6/10 (26 May 2003)

*Spoilers Herein.*
I saw The Matrix on the special preview night, May 14, 2003. I tried for the entire movie to ignore the fact that it was grossly subpar. Aided by the pervading confusion this film cannot help but create, I nearly succeeded. However, the dust has now settled, and I see clearly that there's nothing there.
I decided to hold off until now to review the movie, in order to sort things out as best I can. At first, I knew only that it was worth the price of admission and that it wasn't as good as the first. I become surer every day of the latter, and less sure of the former.
I loved how the original Matrix grabbed me in exactly the way that its sequel does not. At no time during the movie was I unaware that I was watching a movie. There was nothing compelling about this film, and nothing to make me care about the characters.
That's my biggest complaint about the movie -- the emptiness. The dialogue sounds like somebody trying to sound philosophical. The fighting scenes -- which, by the way, have no purpose or sense of urgency -- look like actors having rehearsed a really cool fighting scene. The slowed-down bullet time shows adds nothing to any scene that wouldn't have been present at normal speed.
A surprising shortfall in this film is the CGI -- which is, quite simply, unacceptable. In the much-touted scene with Neo fighting 100 Agent Smiths, Neo's face doesn't even look like Neo! The distinction between the two movies here is subtle, but critical. In the first, the distortions of reality gave a hyper-real sensation, such as the rippling of the building hit by the copter, or the dodging of the bullets. Where the first was hyper-real, its sequel looks hyper-fake.
Holding off until now to review the movie allows me to address the other reviews on this site; specifically, those written by buffoons.
1) Many have (sadly) commented that this movie is a 10/10, but the original is better. If this movie is perfect, then the original can't be better, can it?
2) Somebody said he was unable to comprehend anybody possibly rating it higher than a zero. Ignoring the obvious fact that *every* vote is higher than zero, there are many movies far worse than this.
3) I can't believe somebody suggested that this isn't a sequel! dictionary.com, my friend, dictionary.com. And don't tell me that the CGI fighting was supposed to look like CGI; I have more respect for the Wachowskis than that.
To summarize, this movie is certainly not the year's worst. It may, however, be the most disappointing. It is flashy but soulless, wordy but saying nothing -- in short, it is simply adequate. A well-earned 6/10.