I must say here that the "philosophers" here struggle to keep up with the corniness that is the third Matrix flick. They know that few actually liked the third film, and they spend much of this commentary trying to redeem this unredeemable film.

They try to finish off the films by complimenting them graciously, but at the same time they also are forced to sit and watch the extra-long "dock" sequence with absolutely no real meaning except for ILM.

See my review for the other five, but especially the "sum up" review below for the critics.

Finally, the critics get their chance that they had obviously been waiting for so long for. They complain, but often in humorous and amusing ways. They rag so hard on the film that it almost seems like an MST3K riffing at times. Let's face it, no one likes the third film, and the critics voice those opinions strongly and humorously.

Finally, the best comment comes at the very last moment:
"The Matrix: The Passion of the Neo"
I laughed pretty hard.

To sum up all six commentaries:
It is obvious that the philosophers have a high amount of respect for all three films. Perhaps too much. In fact, they are so enraptured in it that they manage to ignore all of the series' faults. They spend as much time oohing and aahing over the film and the special effects than they do talking about the philosophical aspects of the film. For the first film, they make sense, but by the end of the second film they have little to discuss and manage to string out their discussions about Heidegger and Kierkegaard to longer than they should be. They're excited, but they don't quite offer everything that we'd want with a philosophical discussion.

The critics, on the other hand, miss a lot of the points, but unlike the philosophers who can't get the horrible points of the series, the critics acknowledge that there are some great aspects of the series, but they are overshadowed by the silly flaws that become so embarassing by the third film that no one could miss them. By the end of the third film, they have so many critques that it's hard not to agree with at least a few of them.

So which one should you listen to? Well, for someone like me who Enjoyed 1.5 of the movies but not the other 1.5, it's interesting to listen to such differing viewpoints on the film. For those of you who loved all three (all five of you) then you simply will not like the critics' commentary in any way. If you like them simply for the action sequences, then you'll laugh your way through the philosophers' discussion. It's a hard line to draw between these two extremes, so be aware that one way or another you're not going to like certain parts of these commentaries.

So, which series is better? Well, neither, really. Or, "it depends." I can't get any more vague, I know, but it's hard to say. There are some moments where you really want to slap some of the critics, but there are others when you simply want to turn the philosophers off for good because they only talk about their subject in spurts. Overall, both tracks are only at their best when they talk about their own field. In other words, the philosophers stink when they talk about the film aspects, and the critics stink when they just don't get certain metaphorical aspects (or just regular plot aspects.)

So I prefer the critics, but yeah, don't take my word for it.