response 1 of 6:

May 11 21:33 UTC 1999

Not me.  It was cool, but not the coolest.

response 3 of 6:

Jul 29 22:25 UTC 1999

My opinion is terribly biased since I look at the movie for its 
cinematographic strengths.  Much of its elements are so well woven 
together that they're practically seamless.  Consider the following 
examples:

The soundtrack contributed directly to the ambience of the film.  Most 
of the music was so well fitted to the plot and scene that I sometimes 
couldn't even tell it was there.  Although the Marilyn Manson track 
stood out somewhat like a sore thumb in the credits (I do *not* think it 
fit anywhere, and although it had some techno motifs, it could have been 
left out), I was astonished at how well they were able to fit in the Rob 
Zombie tune (in the dance club).  It is also a soundtrack that needs the 
full surround sound setup-- or the experience is not the same.

The computer animation was very, very well done.  Some films use 
computer generated animation that is a little too obvious.  The art of 
the computer and the art of the film was very well integrated.  If 
computer art was a little too obvious, well, the entire story was built 
around that concept-- of *course* it should be somewhat noticable.  That 
was the entire idea of the Matrix.

The pacing was very appropriate to the film genre.  Mark Ziemba 
commented that pacing was a problem with Mission: Impossible, another 
film in the action-adventure category.  No such problem here.  The 
narrative hook was so well set that you were scooped right into the plot 
development, and it happened very quickly in the film.

Many of the actors did their own stunt sequences, a practice that is 
becoming more and more common in current films.  This contributed nicely 
to the intensity of the action.  Camera cutaways to stunt doubles, when 
they were needed, were smooth and fluid.

Eye candy, eye candy, eye candy.  Perfect for those of us who love old 
school music videos (I told you I was biased).  However, even though it 
was a visual feast, it didn't detract from the story line.  The whole 
original concept was a stroke of genius: the Matrix idea allowed the 
filmmakers to use fantastic FX and still relate them to the story, as I 
said.

Marketing of this movie was perfect.  Only Lucas, I believe, has 
marketed his movies (Special Edition and Episodes I-III) by website 
before.  http://www.whatisthematrix.com cut to the core audience of the 
Matrix: a movie about virtual reality was advertised in a virtual 
medium.  Like _The Phantom Menace_, the _Matrix_ trailer was available 
complete via the Web.  The webpage also suggests likewise potential of 
the movie to grow into other mediums: several comics are posted on the 
site.

The storyline idea of a Messiah that is guided to his destiny but must 
fully realize it on its own was fresh and original.  Many of the 
characters' names suggest their roles in the film, and their symbolic 
meaning: only Cipher was brutually obvious.  I realized watching the 
film the second time that a thoughtful viewer could easily predict his 
role in the film just by his name alone.  That is unfortunate, but 
perhaps it is necessary.

Anyway, it may not be the absolute best of films, but I think that is 
mostly a matter of opinion.  All in all, I think it is one of the 
best-crafted sci-fi/action films I have seen in a very long time.  It 
will certainly stand out in its genre for a VERY long time.

The only other downside was that many theaters couldn't show it in a DVD 
format.  I can hardly wait to see what it will look and sound like then.

response 5 of 6:

Jul 16 22:13 UTC 2003

The matrix sucked