You know, I never much liked even the first Matrix. The acting was subpar and the characters were awful--not to mention that it was pretentious as hell. I get the feeling that it was just so popular because of the special effects and action. "Dark City" approached a similar premise from a more character-focused angle, and got none of the praise, in spite of being a much better film.
Did anyone honestly sympathize with Neo, Trinity, and the gang, or feel like they were anything more than cardboard cutouts? Hell, the Star Wars prequels had better character development. Morpheus would have been kind of cool as the mentor character if everyone else didn't act exactly like him. Ideas and action do not a good film make--and I'm even okay with obscure films (see David Lynch), but they need to strive to make a connection with the audience that doesn't involve talking down to them or giving them a laser show. Inland Empire, for example, was a brilliant visual feast, and the visuals were indispensible, but the characters were also plausible and well-acted. Not so with The Matrix, which seems to lack the real substance of filmmaking.
Ironically, my attitude toward the first film allowed me to enjoy the second and third film more than most people, since I didn't think it was all that different. They were ridiculous, but fun to watch in a theater with friends. I wasn't expecting a masterpiece.
Anyway, the last thing I spent money on was a Netflix subscription, which may be the best decision I have ever made. I've had Sweeny Todd mailed to my house. Good movie (though I suppose I've now had my own taste called into question...).
