Let's Expound On The True Pluses And Minuses Of 'Reloaded'

Rating: Null/10 (16 May 2003)

Zero-in on what's true about 'Reloaded,' even if your truth and mine are inevitably subjective. These truths are addressed in no particular order.
The Fights: Astoundingly more elaborate than the first. That does not necessarily make them better. In terms of skill, it's apparent the physicality of the Matrix actors will never truly achieve the agility and power so breathtakingly done in 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' and other Yuen Wo Ping-choreographed films. But it doesn't matter if buildup and payoff were more frequently used, as in the scene where they have to get the Keymaster. I hate to say it, but the impressive multiple-Agent Smith sequence could have been trimmed or even cut without appreciable loss of story. (What was it about, cool graphics?) The Keymaster chase, conversely, is almost redemptive in its back-on-track focus on the plot: not only is it eye-popping, it's about these people trying to get away with something, not just fighting for the sake of special effects.
The 'Back To The Future II' syndrome: Kenneth Turan rightly says 'Reloaded' suffers from middle syndrome, in that because we know it doesn't end in this one, there's less urgency to tell a complete, self-contained story. It's much safer to pack it with information and lean on the third flick to pull it together. But audiences want more than that. We want 'The Empire Strikes Back,' not the aforementioned Zemeckis film. Of course, that's easier said than done.
Unnecessarily Long Or Improperly Placed Sequences: I love the revelry of the Zion celebration - at least, the idea of it. But I don't think it had to be that long, or passionate, unless it came later in the film. Don't you feel you would have enjoyed it more AFTER our heroes survive a scrap, as opposed to before? I've already mentioned the Agent Smith scene. I also believe the opening Trinity sequence robs the action of its power as a foreshadowing piece instead of a complete sequence. Again, don't give us glitz without meaning. Part of the reason 'The Matrix' is so appealing is that the meaning far outweighs the glitz. I think Roger Ebert said it best: the story is far more engaging than the action.
The Little Things: I love the part when Neo ministers to followers who desperately believe in him. Or when that guy waxes about wine and the pleasures of swearing in French. The character things, the things that really mean something, come few and far between in the first hour, satisfy us in the second, and make us wonder why we had to sit through half a movie before it decided to get good.
So does it mean 'Reloaded' is bad? Not by a long shot. Is it as good as the first? Sorry, not that either. But it does prime you for 'Revolutions.' Let's hope it follows the 'Back To The Future III' syndrome in that it ties things up nicely, making us appreciate the two that came before.