Only one thing wrong with this movie...

Rating: Null/10 (10 November 2004)

I have seen all three films in their entirety, and I believe I have understood their theme/story-line probably better than most. So please note that throughout this review there will be SPOILERS that might ruin the experience for those who have not yet seen this masterpiece trilogy.
As my subject states, I could only find one thing wrong with this film (and it's trilogy), but the Wachowski brothers tried their best and that's all anyone can ask for. The Wachowski brothers essentially over-estimated the intelligence of the general audience. Period. Either that, or they new that only a small percentage of the general public would be able to grasp their concept and reasons behind the making of their film. From the choice of actors to what many viewers called "a stupid lame story that went no where with obvious CGI." But they stopped at nothing to get their ideas out there for the small handful of people that understood the story in it's entirety.
I don't have the time right now to give my full understanding/analysis of the film (it could literally fill a novel), but I will touch on a few common points where many other reviewers have commented on as being a negative of the film.
COMMON NEGATIVE POINT #1: "The first Matrix film was so much better than the second two, both in story and ground-breaking effects."
My understanding of the trilogy was the Wachowski's attempting to put the audience in the Matrix (so to speak). With the first film giving us (the audience) something we've never seen before and having most of the film shot in the Matrix as opposed to the real world, and in a sense "waking those who want to be woken up." The second film had more of an even balance between scenes shot in the Matrix and the real world and thus giving us a clearer understanding of the characters and their purpose... maybe even trying to make us think about ours. And finally the third film has more scenes shot in the real world and very little in the Matrix, drawing parallels between the attempted destruction of the Matrix. This was all achieved beautifully with the "average" acting abilities of Keaneu Reeves (done on purpose for believability to portray an average drone, because not everyone in that situation knows exactly what to do, say or how to act - a perfect cast for him).
COMMON NEGATIVE POINT #2: "Man, in the burly brawl sequence, in Reloaded, I could totally tell the CGI when he's fightin' all those Smith's... really, really bad and noticeable."
Well, duh. I mean come on, please don't tell me that I was the only one who picked up on this... Hello!?! He IS in a computer program after all and the whole idea on one person taking on 99 people in all-out fight without a single broken bone, bruise or death is soooo believable right? I thought that was a fantastic touch done on purpose for those who understood why. The first time I saw that sequence in the theatre I knew right away what they meant and that not many people would get it.
COMMON NEGATIVE POINT #3: "In Revolutions, I don't get the ending. It's totally unexplained and makes no sense at all. What a stupid ending."
First off... do we really need everything explained to us in laymen terms for us to be satisfied with a movie? Can't we leave nothing to our imaginations? But for those of you who want an explanation of the ending, here is my take on it:
Up until this point, Smith is "no longer an agent, he's freed from the system" (Reloaded). So is Neo. "Smith is Neo's opposite, the result of the equation trying to balance." (Revolutions). Their powers extend beyond the Matrix... Neo stopping the 4 sentinels, Smith copying into Bain. Smith replicates himself (like a virus) and using anyone as a host, including the Oracle, takes over their body and mind and controls it. His purpose is to replicate, regardless of weather or not he should, it's his purpose and he cannot control his purpose. The Oracle knew this and took a chance that she might be able to prevent Smith from taking full control over her when "she's sitting there with purpose," even though she knew Smith was coming and could have left, but didn't (Revolutions). Now, the only way back into the Matrix to fight Smith is if the machine mainframe jacks him in... thus giving the machine mainframe a direct connection between a human and the matrix... important later on. Then the big fight sequence between Smith and Neo, where we see the result of what happens when an unstoppable object collides with an immovable object. All the while Neo is fighting the cloned Oracle, where after a fierce last blow to the face of Smith he loses some control over the embodied Oracle and she gats a final message out to Neo. Smith says: "Everything that has a beginning, has an end Neo..." Which is the very first time Smith had called him Neo since his interrogation of him in the first film, and there he only refers to him as "a hacker alias - Neo" as he's reading it from his file. Every other reference to him has been the classic: "Mr. Anderson" After that phrase the roles of power are reversed, Neo knows he is now ready to defeat Smith and save Zion at the cost of his own life and Smith is terrified but knows that he cannot fight the control of his purpose - to replicate. Not knowing that when he does, he now has given the machine mainframe direct access to his code by cloning Neo and all the machine mainframe has to do now is basically "hit the delete button" and Smith goes away leaving all the cloned bodies behind including the Oracle. The Matrix has now had a successful virus scan. The Matrix will more than likely dissipate as all those who wish to be freed can do so now as a peaceful co-existence is attempted.
Well, that's all for now... I could go on in greater detail on almost every aspect of the film, but for those who don't like to pass judgment on a film without a clear understanding of it. Some recommended reading material:
"Taking the Red Pill" Science, Philosophy and Religion in The Matrix by Glenn Yeffeth (Editor), David Gerrold.
"The Matrix and Philosophy: Welcome to the Desert of the Real" (Popular Culture and Philosophy, V. 3)