Calling "The Matrix" a science fiction movie is a massive abuse of the English language. Science fiction presumes a basis in an existing or projected law of science. At least this is the principle which gives substance to the wildest speculations of masters such as Arthur C Clarke (who has a first class physics degree). This film is better categorized as a science fantasy, i.e. one where the authors use the pretence of science as a fig leaf to disguise the total inanity and incoherence of their project. Even fairy tales work within their own framework of law which gives tension and excitement to the surreal adventures. In "The Matrix" laws are not even made up as they go along, as that would impede the next stream-of-consciousness stunt. It makes a great special effect if a character leaps tall buildings at a single bound or recoils from a road surface after falling from a 500 foot building. Unfortunately it also removes any possibility of the audience taking him to be even a far-fetched human character, and hence destroys any possibility of genuine thrills. These creatures can survive being run over by a subway train and even death itself. Hence the most risible Lazarus scene since "ET" -

Keanu is revived from the tomb by the love of a good woman.

You can make tennis easier to play by removing the net and rubbing out the lines; unfortunately you thereby destroy the game. Similarly The Matrix fails to exist as any sort of half-coherent movie if you want a movie to consist of more than a string of sensational images.

Unlike AC Clarke's work, this screenplay fails to betray even a high school awareness of science in "explaining" its universe, the war between machines and humans, or the rationale for the machines sucking the life force of humans - not to mention the hokey insertion of an old style soothsayer into this "scientific" farago.

I give it 2 out 10 - one for sheer chutzpah in raising $60 million on the basis of such a ludicrous script and 1 for set design and special effects combined.