Most complaints about the movie are not valid

Rating: 10/10 (4 October 2003)

Okay, here's how I felt about the film: This is the best sequel to any movie since Empire Strikes Back and Terminator 2. With that said, let's look at why people don't like this movie, at least according to the numerous postings on this site:
1. A case of cognitive dissonance: nothing but talk/nothing but action and special effects
This is very confusing to me, since many people complain about too much talking (which was great) with not enough action, and about too much action (which was also great) with not enough substance and dialogue. These are predominant complaints that are directly opposite of each other. So which is it? It's largely a matter of how much one expects from a sequel to The Matrix.
2. It was a big disappointment from the first Matrix movie.
Disappointment follows expectations. What did you expect? The Matrix Redux? The Matrix Repeated? Obviously there will be comparisons drawn, but the fact is that the two movies are VERY DIFFERENT--and I'm not talking about which one was better than the other; they are simply different. And isn't that how it should be, as a matter of fact? If you have a trilogy that's simply three same movies, what's great about that? The first and the second installments are (and supposed to be) designed differently because they serve different purposes in the grand scheme of a trilogy. (This is particularly annoying when I hear people saying "Empire Strikes Back" was the worst of the Star Wars trilogy, when it was pretty obvious to me that it was much more skillfully made and directed than the original Star Wars.)
3. It was too long.
It was TWO minutes longer than the first Matrix. What, couldn't hold the attention span through Neo's interaction with the Architect, the most shocking, revealing, and in a way exciting part of the entire movie (actually, in a way, of the entire trilogy so far). Yeah, you could've cut out 5 minutes of the Celebration of Humanity/Zionic Rave, but can't you just sit still for a bit? Titanic -- now THAT was long and boring!
4. It was boring.
Go watch a Jet Li movie. He does those change-directions-in-mid-air moves too, and he does it for good solid 90 minutes of his movies. And of course, there are plenty of Matrix knockoffs (like hey, "The One" with Jet Li!) you can watch. Weren't you expecting at least a little philosophical discussion based on the first Matrix movie?
5. The first was much better.
First of all, this is insufficient and even irrelevant to the discussion of the movie's quality. Again, these are separate movies designed to serve different roles in a trilogy.
In fact, I think this movie surpasses the predecessor because it's less formulaic. The first one was "revolutionary" (actually, it's not THAT revolutionary except that its sleek style reached much more audience than others movies with similar concept, e.g. "Dark City") but you have to admit it followed a kind of archetypal storybook sort of plot: discovery of a Savior figure, his struggles to discover the power within him, epic battles at the climax, and right up to the good ol' Sleeping Beauty-esque kiss that brings the loved one back to life. "Reloaded" does not follow any of that. It's a brand-new territory; VERY EXCITING! We have a hero who is not battling mostly with his identity rather than discovering his powers. We have great philosophy running through about levels of control and in the end we are left to wonder if everything we've learned in the first Matrix is true. This is beyond great; it's fantastic! The makers of "Reloaded" has abandoned the conventional and safer route for an even more challenging and superb road that puts its own neck on the chopping block. Coming out of the theater, I was left with a lot of questions (which I assume will be answered for the most part in "Revolutions"), but it felt wonderful to be challenged in even more daring ways by the world of the Matrix.
So it seems like much of criticism and disappointments come because people choose to come with certain ideas and biases in their minds.

The problem is, indeed, choice.

joe k.