Not that good, overlong

Rating: 6/10 (2 April 2006)

I can't reconcile all the other gushing comments with the extremely average film I saw. It is neither tense nor complex, the script is hammy beyond belief (as graphic novel adaptations usually are), Hugo Weaving is OK, Natalie Portman is not challenged, John Hurt pulls a deranged David Blunkett, Stephen Fry is OK, Stephen Rea is underserved, everyone else is window-dressing. The visual homage to 1984 is obvious. The FX are the high point (although not as good as The Matrix), but then you knew that going in. It really sagged, could have done with 1hr of cuts. It's political enough, it's not a love story, it doesn't have enough suspense to be a thriller. I wished I'd spent my money on Ice Age 2 instead.
Forget protégés, the Wachowskis should take back the helm of the Nebuchadnezzar themselves, ASAP. 6/10 or 2.5 stars.