Thanks for posting a new topic on this as requested. <3
Ok, I'm going to rip this to shreds right here Devlar-style, since I happen to like all three movies....Just for you Phoenix...
Why thank you, I'm flattered. 
1. Horribly done CGI, used at totally inappropriate times to ultimately degrade what began as a rather realistic looking series. Within the original, there are maybe two or three scenes that I can pick out as being horribly done when it comes to CGI. In the sequels, however, every other sequence yielded to a copious amount of just plain yucky effects, which in turn pulls the viewer right out of whatever state of mind they may have been in and destroys any suspension of belief that existed prior to aforementioned events.
This I think it nothing but subjective nitpicking. The CGI sequences are not as easy to pick out as that unless you're expecting something to be CGI to begin with. From the director's point of view, and I agree with this, CGI allowed them to do things that could not otherwise have been done cinematically. This includes camera work, fight sequences, and The hordes of Smith clones in the second movie.
Not only that, but
Unless you've watched the extras on the Revolutions CD you would not know that the smiths in the rain sequence were actors. Yes, I said actors. And dummies. Those clones were NOT CGI, even though it's easy to expect them to be, nor was Smith and Neo in most of the fight sequences. A lot of the work was wire-work with live actors. The same goes for the pillar shooting scene in Club Hel. Those were actors literally walking upside down on the ceiling. The only CGI sequence was the mid-air fight done from extreme distance. Close-up work they used stunt doubles on mobile 3-axis rigs. As for the fight on the dock, yes, they HAD to use CGI for that, but some elements were physical and some were miniature. The crane explosion and collapse was miniature. However, you cannot create a few hundred thousand sentinals and a few dozen APU's without using CGI. You give the content creators far too little credit. I'd like to see YOU do better Mr. Critic.;)
[/color]
2. There were enough slow motion sequences to make John Woo blush. In the first installment of the series slow motion (and bullet-time, to a lesser extent) was used sparingly in seemingly appropriate times, where in the sequels it is used to a disgusting degree only to prolong scenes and allow us to ogle at the ass-ugly CGI.
I again disagree here. The slow-motion sequences allow you to grab an unreal sense of what is going on, and some things the actors did happened at full speed while the ENVIRONMENT was in slow-motion. This has everything to do with how The One is able to manipulate the Matrix and is on par with the first movie.3. The sense of personal conflict within the first film was pushed to near extinction, as the writers decided to replace it with some clich? cosmic conflict. Granted, the original had a cosmic conflict as the back drop, but in the foreground it stayed very much about personal struggles. The abundance of idiotic characters which seemed to randomly appear and disappear for no reason in the sequels counts under this category as well, I would say.
This limited sense of scope is a result of not accepting the trilogy at face value. As well, if you read the link I posted on the stickied topic, no character existed without meaning. You've just missed delving deep into this meaning because, as you've stated, you've already dismissed the second and third installments out of opinion. The trilogy DOES grow in scope because it's about more than just Neo kicking butt on Agent Smith. I recommend renting The Animatrix if you wish to see some background on this. Neo is at the core of all of this, but what happens, and what he does, affects everyone in both the human AND machine worlds. As for the writers "replacing" anything, this entire thing was scripted to be a trilogy from the beginning, as I've said before. They did not replace anything - you merely narrowed your field of view to "tree" size and got lost in the forest.4. Jada Pickett-Smith? She?s related to Will Smith, need I say more?
Which one was that again? So personal dislike of an individual who is not even in a central role is a reason to dismiss two installments of a trilogy?5. The hokey love scenes, which lacked any chemistry between the two actors (and don?t give me that bullshit about Keanu not being able to act, because he?s really not that bad) and ultimately felt very Hollywood-ish in general.
Well, I didn't see anything hokey except The drawn-out scene in the second movie, but then I hate sex scenes in any movie. It did, however, show the haunting vision of Trinity that Neo keeps having and served to offer this premonition. It also served to show that Neo can't escape this sense of fate, even in very intimate moments.
[/color]
6. Neo being omnipotent. This alone managed to destroy any suspense which certain scenes could have held, as well as killed various plot devices. This was admittedly due to the flight ability, but other powers presented themselves as stupid as well. In the end of the original film, where he destroys Smith (the most lovable character in the series), it fits, because it makes for a nice ending. However, creating a follow-up with such a powerful character was arrogant and idiotic.
I sense a lot of personal resentment in here in regards to anything with "deity-like" status. I think you can take that a bit too far at times. As for it destroying the movie, you forget that with the scene with Agent Smith in Revolutions he could fight Smith to a standstill, and fight forever, and neither one would ever win. He chooses instead to lay down his life - something Smith cannot do - and in choosing death he defeats Smith. This is a VERY strong nod to Christ laying down his life to defeat Satan instead of striking everyone down with thunderbolts, as a lot of Hebrews, and probably his disciples, expected. This does fit for his character and is completely in tune with what The One is all about.
I'm sorry that you let your expectations interfere with how the authors chose to write their own story.[/color]
7. The ?in-depth? way the computer world was portrayed seemed to be a complete rip-off of Tron, in just about every conceptual way of thinking. Humanization of programs, physical ?back doors? (among other things)? The list goes on.
Again, you need to see The Animatrix to understand why the machines are so humanistic in some respects and not others. You forget who designed the machines. Does God not create things in His own image? And if mankind was the creator "god" of the machine world, then machines were originally made in the image of man. This is not a rip-off of Tron directly. As for humanization, good grief. Does Disney not humanize animals? Humans humanize EVERYTHING because humans cannot relate to anything but themselves. I can see a lot of people liking a movie they can't understand because it's 100% esoteric as well.8. The lack of a perfect mesh which was present within the original film. In the sequels you either have long, drawn-out fight scenes or long, drawn-out speeches. In the first movie, such things seemed to flow in and out of one another flawlessly, creating one seamless experience for the most part.
This again is the filter of expectation talking. Is flow more important, or is telling the story? I've read good stories that did not flow, and stories that flowed that are not good. This again is subjective. What you may like I may despise, and vice-versa. This does not make it good or bad, it just means tastes differ. This is also why I always recommend to people - see for yourself, and don't take someone else's opinion on whether a movie is good or bad. I've been given bad advice before about some very good movies, art, and literature, and more often than not I find it is just narrowmindedness of a difference of opinion, not the subject matter, that is to blame.
