I'm assuming that this is a video in jest, but little of these things are actual inconsistencies:
-First, not everyone can apparate, and even when you can, it's not something that can be done lightly, given the risk of being splinched. Sure, you could employ an army of apparating postmen instead of owls, but that's really getting into semantics. And the whole "animal cruelty" thing, if it's a joke, sure, if not, then it's on the same level of idiocy as the "house elves are slaves" argument.
-Second, this is more of a minor point, but Hogwarts doesn't run the world, there's wizarding schools/societies/governments all over the world. There's certainly guiding principles that the Wizarding World abides by per the International Confederation of Wizards (I think that's its name), but you're not going to have one school ruling over a world that's got plenty of other magic schools.
-Third, the Wizarding World is pretty crazy by design (as in, from a writing perspective). You could apply more hard logic to the setting, but I'd argue that it would lose some of its charm. I know this is a bit of a tangent, but in the discussion of hard vs. soft magic systems (with HP veering more towards the letter), I don't buy that hard magic inherently makes a setting better (cough*Sanderson*cough)
We rewatched The Matrix: Revolutions last night, and here's my hot take: removed from its place in the original trilogy, it's a great movie. I say "removed" because the first two movies bring expectations that Revolutions fails hard at meeting, but by itself, it's really good.
That's, um, interesting.
My take on the original trilogy (haven't seen the 4th film) is that it's an excellent first movie followed by a good second movie followed by an average third movie. But I'm not sure what expectations Revolutions failed to meet per se. Frankly, I'm not sure who would have expected the ending of Revolutions when the first movie basically sets up "free humanity, defeat the machines" as an end goal (yes, I know film 1 was stand-alone, don't@me), whereas by the end, a peace is formed, with plenty of revelations along the way.
But even taking Revolutions by itself, I can't give it much credit, even if I do like the film overall. My gripes include:
-Its pacing is really strange. The first act can basically cover everything up to Neo exiting the Matrix, the third act everything after the Battle of Zion, while the second act is just "stuff" that fills it in. For instance, the titular battle, while a visual treat, is basically the plot on standstill. The machines attack, are defeated, but turns out aren't defeated after all, so really, what's changed? The first film didn't waste a second, the second film picked up the pace after the Neb leaves Zion, the third film's pacing is just weird.
-Minor point, but for a film called "the Matrix," very little time is spent in the actual Matrix. And yes, I know, I've probably written more Matrix stuff in the real world than in the Matrix itself on FFN, but I'm not the one making blockbuster films, am I?
-While YMMV, Revolutions really starts stretching creduilty for me. I know this is a series that stretched creduilty from minute 1, but now Neo can see in the real world, can influence machines in the real world? Yes, Christ imagery, blah blah blah, but considering the principles the series operated until then, honestly, it's a bit much. It's never really explained that well either bar some reference to Neo connecting to "the Source," and therefore gaining technopathy or something.
-The ending is a letdown - Neo's battle with Smith comes up short of the prior films, and I'm still not clear exactly what happened to make Smith lose by assimilating him. I can certainly theorize (and plenty of people have done so), and maybe there's a definitive explanation somewhere, but again, I think this is a case of things being too vague for their own good.
Granted, a lot of these gripes stem from the film as a sequel, but even on its own terms, all I can call it is an average action movie.
