What’s the underlying warning in “The Matrix”? It’s the Y2K problem, I promise you. I’m not going to address it, because I’d use too many particulars and spoil the film (not that the flashy trailer isn’t close enough to doing that).

 In “The Matrix”, humans are fodder for the machines we’ve created. The
machines are hatching us, in our incubated form, to use us for fuel. Thing is, we don’t
even know we’re incubated because we’re experiencing reality while our bodies are
sleeping. Life is but a dream. A man called Morpheous and his small band of cronies
have tapped into the “matrix” and awoken. They are no longer in the dream, but in the
“real world”, the one where the machines have won. The idea? There is a chosen one
who will be as powerful as the machine’s “agents” (morphing folks that look like FBI
operatives), and will defeat the computer race with one swift blow.. The movie opens cynically, moves to action and effects extravaganza and closes with.....well, it does end...eventually.

 The film suffers greatly from the presence of producer Joel Silver (to further
lambaste him, I’m going to name one you’ll recognize as truly bad, “Fair Game”). He’s
interested in cliches abound, explosions till tomorrow and, just for kicks, romance,
(whether it goes with the film, or against it - as it does in this film). The typical one-liners
you’d hear after someone blows someone else away exist in this film. The overkill of
explosives lingers above the film. The romance hasn’t felt so tacked on since “The Fifth
Element”. On the other hand, the charm and charisma of the film’s writer-directors can
be felt all over the film. I’m speaking now of the Wachowski brothers, who’ve previously
earned my presence at this film by making the brilliant “Bound”. The film is easy to like,
hard to forgive - on some levels. While it’s trying to maintain this grave, disturbing atmosphere at times, it’s interrupted by supreme goofiness. It creates a new world with new rules, but
maintains the existence of too much Hollywood.

 I loved watching Keanu Reeves and Carrie Moss in the film’s action sequences.
I’ve always said that Keanu is strong in action films (“Point Break”, “Speed”) and  if he
can carry that likeable persona in appropriate films, it works for him. Moss, a 'Models,
Inc' alumni (if you remember the show - clap your hands - you didn't blink the second it was on), was a fine complement among the rest of the male cast. Her beauty and
almost robot-like precision works just fine in this type of film. Fishburne, who’s slipped
lately in his choice of films to appear in (“Fled” sticks in my mind), brings back the
control and abrasion he’s best at (“What’s Love Got to Do With It”, “Othello”) as
Morpheous. All these stars (much to the disadvantage of the film) are overwhelmed by the slow drawl and sly wit exuded by the film's greatest asset - Aussie actor Hugo Weaving (playing Head Agent Smith) - who deserves an Academy Award for "performance most mimicked in my household".

Isn't it a wild and somewhat unnerving contradiction (or am I just sadistic?) that the villain in most American action vehicles is so much more appealing and interesting than the action hero? Am I just sympathizing, subconsciously rooting for the underdog - always the clear cut candidate for an unnecessarily showy death scene? Has American film become such a copy of itself that I can predict the fate of both the loser and the winner from frame one? Should there even need to be a winner and a loser in a film?

This is why I love it when irony steps in and slaughters the good guy as the bad guy laughs with malfeasance and drives off into the sunset, smoking calmly.

But back to reality - there is a floating and very immeasurable reason to see “The Matrix”.
It boasts wild action sequences, all of which are exciting. It contains
special effects shots that will take your breath away and enchant your mind. There is
enough plot here to keep you thinking about the film long after you leave the theater,
desperately trying to make simple sense out of it. There are talented actors working
alongside the film’s visual spectaculars. The film would be an unbelievable success as a
sci-fi movie if it didn’t constantly remind us that it is a movie by shooting off it’s mouth
with embarrassing dialogue.

Sometimes, when a film looks so good and gets marketed so hard, it blows itself up before it can take off. While “The Matrix” hovers for a good long while, I wasn’t as satisfied as I’m sure the filmmakers’s were hoping. After 135 minutes of nonstop visual KA-BLAMMO, however,  I was exhausted. A film that, underneath, is about the Y2K problem, makes its humans subservient (clawing their way back to the top slowly) and bends reality into oblivion had damn well better tire me out. For that reason, “The Matrix”’s Hollywood stench can be forgiven. Barely.