>>62261656OP here, what I mean is that I actually think the action scenes are the weak point of the franchise. This is normally the opposite of what people say, that 'its all mumbo jumbo but at least it looked cool!!'.
I think it's not maybe put out there -well- per se, but that the themes the films have and the plot structure aren't confusing or nonsense, but rather the shots used to convey them aren't up to par.
Also, the ways people conceptualize 'The Matrix' are pretty basic, and seem to fall into the trap that the film has set for the audience in order to simplify the plot structure. A lot of people who consider themselves 'critics' go through the film and find things like 'Metacortex' (pic related) and think, huh, oh, there's a Neo-cortex too, wow what are they trying to say?!? I don't think that the film is trying to say -anything- with those details, but rather that they're just stylistic choices that were not chosen at random but perhaps very little plot significance overall.
I'll give another popular 'wow ebin' example, and then one of my own in a seperate post. (as it will have an image attached)
Another 'wow ebin' thing, and I'm specifically thinking about the first film here, is how when we first see 'Trinity', she's in room 303. When we first see 'Neo', he's in room 101. A lot of people seem to like to point that out as significant or as some interesting/important detail, when, again, I think it was just the filmmakers doing the obvious. If you've ever made a film or a movie it's way easier to obsess over small details that you -think- the audience is seeing or being aware of, but which they actually are glossing over. Because so many people gloss over certain elements, those who don't see them as significant, when again, I think those elements were never intended to be overly meaningful, but rather just 'yeah that seems fitting' instead.
