Finally, it’s over. The trilogy has come to an end and the puzzles of “The Matrix” have reached their winding conclusion. Like a vacating president, we’re left to argue the legacy the films will leave behind.

“The Matrix: Revolutions” begins where “Reloaded” left off. We’re back with Neo and the gang, and Neo’s still stuck in limbo, teetering somewhere in between the Matrix and reality. Trinity, his “girlfriend,” and his “friend” Morpheus hatch a plan to break him out.

-This leads the clan back to the Oracle, who leads them to the man who can bring Neo back. They’re then led to the club frequented by the Merovingian, crazy Frenchman who controls Neo’s fate. After a session of “bargaining,” Neo is returned to his lover Trinity, and all is well.

Of course, there’s much more to this story. Neo ventures back to the Oracle, who explains the rationale behind Agent Smith, the rogue program inside the Matrix who desires world domination and, on top of everything else, Neo’s death. This is where the Oracle counters the claims made by the Architect that Zion would be destroyed if Neo made the choice to head through a certain door.

The Oracle claims the “Architect” is in charge of nothing more than balancing equations, and that choices are what you make of them; they’re not predetermined. Also, the Architect’s balancing act is what caused the Smith program to go berserk, so his judgment certainly can’t be trusted.

Now Neo is stuck with a war against the machines and a war against the Smiths. What happens from here I will leave to the viewer. I will say the latter half of “Reloaded” combined with the first half of “Revolutions” makes for an interesting picture. Had it not been for the mind-numbing action that bookends this story, I really would have enjoyed the trilogy.

It should be said there is a very impressive battle sequence near the end of “Revolutions” when the machines finally reach Zion. This is a great example of CGI executed properly, with the cartoonish accents of hand-to-hand combat replaced with metal-on-metal carnage. The effects in the scene usually would draw in a viewer, but the script keeps casting them away.

Which brings me to my next point: If the Wachowski brothers really are the geniuses their fan base hails them to be, you’d have to figure they could avoid the mindless clichés constantly uttered by their characters.

For example, when a character gives a resounding speech before going into battle and is greeted with cheers by his following army, we know only one thing can happen. The character will die in the heat of battle, and with his dying last words, he will hand the torch to the young lad that he chastised earlier in the picture for not being good enough to fight. I know this, you know this and the Wachowskis definitely know this.

Later, when a character dies and pleads with another to go on alone, the other character responds à la Rose Dawson, “Not without you!” The most important moment in the trilogy thus becomes its most hilarious.

Another major flaw of these films is the stonewall aspect to these characters. Why must Morpheus never show any emotion? You’d figure if Neo and Trinity were so in love, they would smile at each other at least once. Why are these characters deprived of emotion? Maybe the machines literally sucked the emotion out of them.

It’s too late now to ask these questions. One great sequel has been stretched into two lackluster action flicks. The Wachowskis had an opportunity to make a really great sequel to “The Matrix,” but got caught up in the senseless hype of virtual cinematography.

While it would be easy to blame “The Matrix” for choosing style over substance, I would disagree. There’s plenty of substance, but in order to cram in all of the “no-apparent-reason” fighting, the substance is rushed, and we walk away feeling empty. The film’s complexities are what make it interesting— not the countless ways in which characters can walk on walls and dodge bullets.

The Wachowski brothers have chosen to focus on the advancement of CGI technology and to ignore the strong need for exposition in their screenplay. Although they claim they strive to avoid the pitfalls of filmmakers like George Lucas, they end up making the exact same mistakes. A great film needs a great script, and “The Matrix: Revolutions” proves it.