to be honest the only actor i thought came out of the sequels with any credibility was hugo weaving, he played smith so well, i loved the character, as for the others? there was little if no chemistry between reeves and moss, fishbourne was a spectator for reloaded and had only a little more in revolutions, niobe wasn't bad, she did what was asked of her and theres nothing wrong with that. In Reloaded and Revolutions the direction wasn't bad, it just seemed to be missing something.
I did not think there was anything wrong with the acting...the directing, maybe, but thats because Joel Silver wouldn't get off his butt and do anything...(can i tell i don't like Joel silver much?)
anywho, I liked the last two because they did not follow what was expected. I liked having to understand what was what and why this happened. It broadened my horizens and made me a better person. I understand more about my world because i understand their world. If you put into the movie more than just the 9 hours to watch it, then you will appreciate them much more, and i liked the 2nd and 3rd movie so much, perhaps because i grew around them and had such a wonderful community to talk about them in (aka Killer Movies Forum).
jedi i agree with most of your point, there the kind of movies that have an effect on youm i was the same, i just don't believe a brilliant idea and philosophy can excuse bad filmaking.
btw the actors i didn't like were reeves and moss mostly, partly because they had no chemistry, but also i believe they were capable of better.
zion was essential to revolutions. that's where the revolutions actually take place. to cut it out and assume they're at war is ridiculous. and the thought of agent smith being in the screen for two whole hours is just argh since he took over everybody's shell in the matrix, he'll be the only one there.