Critics’ reviews

The Matrix (1999)

8 reviews from 8 publications. Critics’ score 79: 5 positive, 0 mixed, 1 negative.

Back to our review of The Matrix

79
Positive
5
Mixed
0
Negative
1

Most critics respond warmly to The Matrix, with praise concentrated on its visual effects, martial arts choreography and stylised action. Bullet-time photography and the combination of wirework with computer effects are recurring strengths: the reviews credit the Wachowskis with finding fresh ways to stage familiar action. Several also welcome the film’s handling of science-fiction ideas, while Hugo Weaving’s performance draws approval even from a detractor.

The disagreement centres on how much substance supports that spectacle, and the spread is wide despite the positive lean. The New York Times finds the plotting potentially pretentious, while Sight and Sound sees little originality in the ideas about reality and control but admires their presentation. Time Out is the clearest dissenter, arguing that an ingenious opening gives way to routine action, thin characters and simplistic heroics. The divide is over whether the action develops the premise or wastes it.

Empire
11 June 1999 · Ian Nathan
90*

The Wachowskis deliver a dazzling sci-fi action spectacle that reinvents the cyberpunk genre with groundbreaking visual effects and non-stop excitement. The film stands out for its innovative 'flo-mo' technique and perfect fusion of style, content and cool factor.

Read the full review →
Total Film
11 June 1999
90*

The Matrix is the action movie of the millennium, a mind-bending sci-fi thriller that pushes the boundaries of the genre with spectacular effects and intelligent plotting. The Wachowskis craft an ultra-cool, no-limits filmmaking experience remembered alongside Star Wars for 1999.

Read the full review →
The Hollywood Reporter
· David Hunter
85*

The review is highly positive, calling the film a technologically stunning cyber sci-fi thriller that will be a big hit and further the genre with its visual effects and storytelling. It singles out the stylish action sequences, including wirework and bullet-time photography, along with strong performances especially from Hugo Weaving.

Read the full review →
Time Out
· GA
40*

The first hour works as an ambitious dystopian fantasy with ingenious reality switches and slick visuals, but the promising premise is wasted as it becomes a routine action picture with paper-thin characters and facile heroics. It ends as overlong high-concept hokum despite some engaging elements like Weaving's performance.

Read the full review →
Sight and Sound
1 July 1999 · Philip Strick

The Wachowskis deliver a visually innovative spectacle blending martial arts choreography with computer effects, creating astonishing images in a wonderland of tricks and stunts. The film offers little originality in its message about reality and control but excels in method and unexpected perspectives.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
31 March 1999 · Janet Maslin

The critic praises the film's visual bravado, martial arts stunts, and inventive special effects as its strongest selling points. She notes the pretentious plotting as a potential drawback but highlights its stylish cyberescapism and action dynamics.

Read the full review →
Collider
11 October 2022 · A- · Meredith Loftus
90

The critic praises the film's groundbreaking visual effects, particularly bullet time, its integration of philosophical themes, and its enduring cultural relevance. They single out the strong chemistry between Keanu Reeves and Carrie-Anne Moss as a highlight amid some weaker subplots.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
19 January 2001 · Angus Wolfe Murray
85*

The critic calls the film a complex, visionary sci-fi that transforms Keanu Reeves into a lithe master of his craft and features astonishing visuals, balletic slow-motion, and audacious gun battles. It urges viewers to be seduced without demanding explanation, likening it to Blade Runner for the computer-literate generation.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate