Good technical merit, fun to watch, generally a good movie. But it isn't a good conclusion of what's supposed to be a trilogy and it certainly isn't a very complex nor intricate story. From an entertainment point of view I feel satisfied that I got my money's worth on the big screen. But the explosions and special effects weren't enough to satisfy my curiosity nor my intrigue with regards to the concepts of reality and dream-state introduced in the first movie.

I don't believe Revolutions is at all "full of unfullfilled(sic) potential" - I consider that an oxymoron considering the content of the picture. I just believe that right from the beginning there was no intention of visiting the potential established by the first movie. The story was simply conceived as a simply action flick with a love-story back-drop.

It would have been monumentally more complex to have concluded the series by revisiting the ideas explored in the first movie, but I did expect more from this production team. Perhaps the trilogy was a victim of its own success. I fear this may be one of the problems in trying to plan sequels or conclusions "after the fact." This isn't something I've seen as a problem with Lord of the Rings and I don't foresee the third installment faltering. The Matrix trilogy just lacks cohesion. And if I can use a few more examples, I felt the first three Star Wars movies fit well together. I don't think the new episodes fit at all with the originals, but I do believe they'll complement each other well. I'm not comparing the three new movies with the originals. That brings us back to the problem(s) with the Matrix.

I'm going to see Revolutions again within the next week (have to take the girlfriend) - I'll keep my eyes and ears open for anything that might help fill the small empty spot left the first time around.

Bruno