The second of the three Matrix films tends to get the worst kicking of the lot when it comes to chats around the water-cooler.
There are a variety of explanations provided for this; a quick tally of my closest friends leaves us with conclusions such as “the plot goes nowhere,” “it's not as good as the
original”, “it's not as clever as the original,” or my particular favorite, complete dismissal of the entire movie because “the architect is rather annoying.” I'm inclined to defend the movie on just about all of these fronts because these arguments are all drawn from the same preconception: the sequel should make you feel the way the first film did.
Except this isn't dreadfully realistic, is it guys. When the illustrious Wachowski brothers released the Matrix in 1999, it was a film the likes of which the world had never seen. Borrowing much of its science-fiction and philosophical elements from German philosophers and Japanese anime, then combining these with action sequences using new filming techniques and a collection of high caliber actors trained in martial arts, the film may not have been everyone's cup of tea but was nevertheless groundbreaking. We were stunned, complacent in our own little world, just starting on the road to DVD heaven, and the Matrix surprised us, enthralled us, made as sit back and gasp. Where it all goes horribly wrong is that everyone seemed to expect the same from number two. Of course it didn't wow you as much as the first; a sequel, by definition, follows on from the original, it is not in a position to break the mold again. It is only when we get to V for Vendetta that we see the Wachowski brothers
really pushing the envelope again, and even that bears remarkable similarities to various portions of the trilogy.
I too was in the cinema, like everyone else, watching then leaving disappointed and convinced the Matrix was finally dead. I watched the third installment with no expectations, and thought it was the best movie I'd seen in a long time. So what was the problem with two? Expectation. It was only when I bought the DVD, curious to try it again, that I found I actually enjoyed the film. And enjoyed it a lot. Suddenly all of its flaws sort of made design sense. I mean, sure the plot goes nowhere really, but it's hard to argue nothing happens or develops and it's setting up for film three so what did we expect? The architect is annoying, but isn't that his purpose? To annoy the audience and get them rallying behind Neo right before he kicks butt?
As for comparisons to the original, arguably Reloader is better paced. I have friends who claim to love the Matrix but will automatically skip Neo running around trying to find himself for the first half of the film and actually start watching from the lobby scene half an hour from the end. Is that love of a film? Really? Reloaded never stops, but is never repetitive either. The combat is escalated, the astoundingly gorgeous car-chase sequence will blow your socks off even if it is a little long, and the inclusion of Zion itself adds real consequence and purpose to the action on screen.
In fact, to be honest, the more I watch Reloaded the more I enjoy it. Every time I forget a key scene or action sequence and it wows me one more time. I'm reluctant to this day to say it is better than the Matrix, or even Revolutions, but much of what I feel for both the other films is merely nostalgia. I've given Reloaded another chance and it is finally proud to stand up to it's two buddies in my DVD collection. So if you didn't like it the first time, why not give it another go. Maybe expecting nothing of it will have positive effects. And if you haven't seen it but liked the first, don't be put off by the bad press. It's a wicked film with much love to give. Just don't let expectation fly away with you.