Calling them "sequels" is inaccurate as the two Matrix sequels are really just two parts of one long film (much like Kill Bill).Futurenerd said:Seriously. Let me ask you a question. Say that you had never seen The Matrix. Now, imagine that I came over to your house and showed you The Matrix Reloaded. Sure it wouldn't make any sense at all, but could you honestly say that otherwise it wouldn't be a good movie? It always pisses me off whenever I see someone hate on the Matrix trilogy because the sequels sucked. In my opinion, even though the Matrix sequels weren't better than the first, they were still wonderful movies in their own right, just not shining in comparison to the first. Can someone give me any other reason besides disappointment for hating the Matrix Sequels? I just don't really get it...
They're not awful, they just suck compared to the first one. I wouldn't say they were "wonderful", the only thing truly excellent about them is the special effects. Bad pacing, ridiculous padding scenes (dance scene, anyone? EDIT: omg I so got ninja'ed), and a fairly generic plot (hero must save the world before the big alien thing destroys everyone) that moves along traditional, completely predictable Hollywood lines all conspire to make the sequel(s) a fairly average affair. If they were released without the first one, it would have barely made a splash for anyone involved, and would probably have lost money too. They aren't woeful, just kinda average.