The move was entertaining... that's about it. I expected bad and (God I hate to use this word, the word that is the staple of any critic, but in this case its so accurate) 'uninspired' acting by Keanu Reeves, and got it. "Woah" couldn't save this movie but obviously special effects did. Hate to break the news to you but Matrix's story line is entertaining but hardly original. (I'd give an example but it might spoil the plot?) But, take any of the great SCI-FI movies of the 50's most of em have the exact same plot but some still stand out. The acting was dull, it really was, Larry Fishburne tried, VERY hard to make it interesting but it was just so pitiful. A good actor like Larry F looked SO out of place in this thing. Entertaining though? Sure, very. The action sequences (though I still think there were too few of them) are some of the best I've ever seen. The CGI effects were outstanding as well. Sometimes that's all you need in a movie. Take, say, Predator. Fun movie, I loved it, not a mecca of acting either, but I liked it better cause it set out what it was supposed to do, better than the Matrix. Is it better than Terminator? or T2? No. I don't think so. Actually I can't quite decide, was there not enough action to offset the dialogue? or was there enough action and the dialogue just slowed the movie down too much to make it appear that way? It could go either way I suppose. With a better actor, and dialogue that didn't slow the movie down as if it had stepped in molasses, it could've blown most any other action movie dead out of the water. I can't say enough how it would kill me that each time I'd see some of the most complex, well paced, outstanding action sequences (the hotel lobby for one being one of the greatest in a movie ever) to be shot to hell by bad acting in and dull dialogue. The action overshadows that enough though to make this movie worthy to watch at least once, that and the DVD kicks A@@ too.