In response to your comments. I must advise you that the entire concept of teh Matriz was originally enviosioned as a live action comic book or videogame. Actually the original plot appeared in a graphic novel by the Wachowskis. As far as Keanu Reeves, must an actor be forever held captive by his reputation from his filmography? Sean Connery did Zardoz for crying out loud. Bill and Ted was vastly superior as a counter culture statement than Zardoz succeeded as a sci-fi film. Also, the story of The Matrix as well as LOTR are huge sprawling plot arcs that cannot be told in a single movie. LOTR could only be told properly in 6 movies, but we as Tolkien fans must feel glad to have been given 3. Originally the greedy studio head honchos wanted to condense 1200 pages of beautiful imagery and carefully detailed characters, languages, and races into a 90 minute indiana jones like adventure flick? I suppose you would be more as home hearing something after the opening credits along the lines of "Last time on...The Matrix..." That way you could be happily cought up to speed. Well, to refute your point about Zion, I also did not like the Zion segments as much as I did enjoy the rest of the movie. However, I do not remember the denizens of Zion wearing sunglasses. Not were they able, within the universe of the story, to generate anything beyond tribal rhythms. Please do not condemn entire genres of music based on your distaste for that scenes Art Direction and score. Finally, for talking to you is beginning to bore me, the action scenes have revolutionized filmmaking, and if you cannpot appreciate I siggest you take some of the philosophical mumbo jumbo you coulsn't understand to heart, and free your mind. The very existance of bukllet time is a testament to the achievements of people like John Gaeta and the Wachowski bothers. What is at stake is only all of humanity should they fail. That is a classic literary conflict, actually all three. For in each fight we have Man Vs. Man, Man Vs. Machine, and Man Vs. Nature. If you need proof, please watch more closely, and try to think of exactly what is happening. Well, I hope you like the third film better. By the look of it it seems to tie the story together, provide more and better action, and answer all the questions we have. And it looks like it be a damn fun film to watch. So I guess you won't like it very much.

Thanks for your opinion. You are entitled to yours, as I am to mine.

A couple of comments:

1) You make a fair point about it being generally unfair to hold an actor's prior filmography against him. However, I was trying to keep it light but should have been more explicit: I don't think Keanu Reeves is a very good actor and think those other films in many ways define his screen persona. (Off topic, I thought I read once that Will Smith was originally offered this role but turned it down? For better or worse, that would have made this series feel much different.)

2) I saw most of "Zardoz" on cable once and it was indeed a pretty baffling, if daring, career choice by Sean Connery. It looked like an interesting concept but was a real heaping, colorful mess of a film.

3) I love the "Lord of the Rings" movies as well as the books so don't think I don't like all science fiction/fantasy. In fact, they are the gold standard of the genre. I think they do work as a nine hour, three film cycle but agree that the original plan for one condensed movie would have been a sacrilege.

4) You may be right about the Zion residents not wearing sunglasses but I was trying to make a larger point about the style of the film (of which the clad-all-in-black style is integral). Style is very subjective and very often the appeal of sci-fi/fantasy films hinges on how much you like the style and trappings of the world created. The Matrix style has a lot adherents but it's just not my bag.

5) Same with the action scenes. They work for a lot of people but didn't for me. The video game style (yes, I understand that they are fighting within a computer-generated world) takes away a lot of the sense of danger to the characters upon which the best action scenes depend. Another film-making nitpick: I don't like when techno music is playing during action scenes - it tells the viewer to "sit back, this is going to take awhile and nothing too serious is going to happen until the music stops."

6) I'm not denying that the bullet-time effects are technically impressive; they are, as well as ground-breaking. However, I don't think they add up to great action scenes. I prefer more visceral, flesh-and-blood peril in action scenes and that is missing here.

7) The movie not standing on its own is a minor complaint compared to the overall merits of the film. I remembered most the original Matrix details during this one but felt a little bit more could've been done to briefly refresh the viewer's recollection (such as the crawl at the beginning of the "Star Wars" films or the synopses in the "Lord of the Rings" books). Not every viewer should be expected to be obsessive. This is not a dealbreaker though and I understand the need to avoid pandering.

8) Finally, the "mumbo-jumbo" is a real problem. However profound the dialogue may allegedly be, there is little excuse for making it sound so ponderous and dry. Better writing would've gone a long way here.

All in all, I do not deny that a lot of what I've said here is very subjective. And I don't deny that I may have failed to catch some of the finer points of the philosophy and plot, but when you are not basically entertained by a film, you don't feel the urgent desire to go back and watch it over and over again to catch every little thing you may have missed.

"The Matrix Revolutions" may be a big improvement on this installment (as I mentioned before, I generally liked the original) and I will probably check it out by rental or, who knows, maybe even in the theater.

Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to write. Debate is a healthy thing and movies, even ones we don't like, are always worth discussing.

Understood. I see you are a good sport. You never truly know someone until you debate them. I got the impression that you hated the movie, and I felt the need to defend it, because you were bursting my bubble of "loving it". I also thought you were completely dismissing the technical achievements of the first film. The topic was the basis for my Sophomore Thesis in college. It made decent reading if you are interested. It's important to remember that Matrix 2 and 3 are one movie. But it has been reedited slightly, and cut in two because no one would sit through a 5 hour movie. Not even Lord of the Rings fans. Although I think we both know I'm wrong on that one... I do apologize for some rude comments, but I had you pinned as more of an arrogant gas bag with a soapbox than an aritculate gentleman. P.S. Very, very interesting about Will Smith. Especially since his wife is featured in the sequels... I bet there's more behind that story. On the topic of Zardoz, I wonder if you've seen THX-1138 or Logan's Run...

A lot of people I know and respect really liked the movie, so I may well be in the minority here. It wouldn't be the first time.

Again, I give the Matrix series a lot of points for telling "a large story largely" and aiming high. Its ambitions/pretensions as well as its huge popularity make it a big target but I think it deserves the challenge of being taken seriously. Among the more famous series, I don't think it measures up to "Star Wars" (because of its unmatched appeal to the young & innocent) or to the "Lord of the Rings" (because of its literary depth). But it deserves credit for aspiring higher than the likes of "Daddy Day Care" or "Bruce Almighty".

I have seen most of "THX-1138"; I remember it being interesting but kind of slow and very clinical. I should check it out again some time. Never saw "Logan's Run".

Finally, I'm still getting used to trying to write for an Internet audience, so I may well be a "gas bag with a soap box"; but I hope to never be an arrogant one.