I liked it for it's "philosophical mumbo jumbo" .. which is why I think the sequals are better, they do a better job in fleshing out the universe and idea of the film ..
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Hmm, I thought the philosohpical merits of the sequels were far inferior to the original. The first film was pregnant with inspiration, which might have been expanded upon (or not): the hints merely made you ask questions -- which is all philosophy can do, really.
The sequels seemed to be-labour the point; to be underlining the same concepts without adding anything. Might as well have had an echo, for all the good the twaddling on about philosophy did -- sort of pseudo-meta-philosophy. "Do we depend on the machines, or they us?" Huh? Horsefeathers. About as valid as the conversation the "Americans" have at dinner in Monty Python's Meaning of Life.
The whole matrix concept swung on the existential axis that the world was truly an illusion, a virtual world created for some sinister purpose. A perfect geek conspiracy. The sequels were just action films. And that lame Neo-as-Christ ending, puh-leeze -- it screams "I don't know how to end the story".
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It's funny .. people can enjoy a film that's totally crummy simply because it's acton (even crummy action) .. but it seems the same doesn't apply for crummy philosophy .. I mean sure it wasn't the deepest toxic pool in the lake, and every 6 year old child have had some of the same ideas .. but sometimes it's nice to simply turn off 90% of the active brain and feel amazed at fast paced action and pseudo philosophy ..
I was able to enjoy it for what it was, no more, no less ..
But I really liked "The Second Renaissance" from Animatrix .. not to deep either but beautifully made imo ..