I caught The Matrix Revolutions earlier and--while I still don't have a clue as to what the hell is going on--found it quite impressive. The battle for Zion was particularly riveting. Expect this baby to do quite well aat the box office.
After watching the movie I decided to check out the reviews, and sure enough, most of them are negative. Why do critics always pan the movies that Joe Q. Public loves? My poersonal theory is that it's because they're stuck-up elitists who are full of themselves.
Most reviewers inevitably end up talking about things like like character development. Stephen Hunter in The Washington Post seemed to be especially stuck on this point. Well, that may be important if you're taking a writing course in graduate school. But do most of us out here in the real world honestly care about what a character's motivations are? I would venture to say "no."
When we shell out eight or nine bucks for a movie--assuming we're not also buying a "small" 32 ounce soda for $3.50--we expect to be entertained. That's OUR motivation. And for guys that usually translates into lots of explosions and spectacular shots of cleavage. And while Matrix only had one reasonable cleavage scene, it did have LOTS of explosions.
If professional movie reviewers grasp this concept, then the rest of us may start more attention to their opinions.