I loved the Matrix--when it was a film released in 1998 called Dark City, a far superior, character driven entry in the sci-fi genre. The Matrix, with its dazzling special effects, is nothing more than a silly tale of perseption vs reality. Everyone's view of the film seems to be manipulated by the effects. If we were dealing with Blade Runner style effects instead of Doritos inspired "bullet time" effects, would the film still be considered as memorable? I highly doubt it. Laurence Fishburne is good as Morpheus, Moss is ok but her character elicits no sympathy or emotion from me, and Keanu Reeves is just ok, but none of these characters are as intriguing as those of Dark City. The kung fu was obviously inspired by the late Hong Kong style of fighting (IE wire fu and CGI instead of actual skills and choreography.) This was designed to make the simpletons of today go "ooh" and "ahh" while real kung fu afficionados ache over the obvious fakeness and frustration of chop editing, thus inspiring furhter kung fu crap like CROUCHING TIGER, EXIT WOUNDS, and ROMEO MUST DIE. Matrix does boast some wonderful cinematography, but so does Dark City and it boasts a better story along with it, too. I'll give this film a 5 out of because in originality it's not in the top, in style it's not original, in acting it's saved by one, and story, pretty basic but not complex. Dark City is better.
Review of The Matrix
