What is it about second installments?

Rating: 3/10 (6 October 2003)

It seems like so many second installments of trilogies fall below the mark of the first and the third. There are, of course, exceptions (THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK for one). For example, while very entertaining, so much of BACK TO THE FUTURE PART 2 was about getting us to Part 3 that I think it really suffered as a whole. And TEMPLE OF DOOM is infamous for starting the PG-13 rating, if it wasn't enough to just be a letdown. I mean, if Spielberg and Zemeckis struggle with those second parters, heaven help anyone else.
So it is, it seems, with the Matrix trilogy. By the time Reloaded was made, it appeared as if all references to what made the first film so entertainingly original were overshadowed by pseudo intellectual psycho-babble and ultra-expensive effects. To be fair, it's been said that something is only new once, and that's certainly an idea working against anything following such an original action piece as THE MATRIX. And again, now that a larger story has been coerced out of the first movie's principle universe, the usual and unfortunate amount of setup must be done to motivate us toward the third installment.
My fingers are crossed, that Revolutions somehow makes sense out of Reloaded. That would at least justify it's existence. When I entered the theater, I was really hoping for a "Two Towers" level followup, something that really moved the story forward and gave us really exciting new characters instead of throw aways. But as I left the theater, all I really felt I got from Reloaded, was a good long car chase.