It's a very good movie. So please. Stop comparing it to the original.
It's a tall order. But one of the things I cannot stand to hear when I ask somebody if a movie that happens to be a sequel (or 2nd part) is any good is, "I liked the first one better."
Great. But that is not what I asked you. Was the frigging movie good or not?
Sequels are almost always inferior to their predecessors. In my view, only twice in movie history has a sequel been better than the original. 'The Godfather II' was superior to the 'The Godfather' and 'Lethal Weapon II' was actually better than 'Lethal Weapon.' Some sequels should never even have been made (Exorcist 2, Jaws 2, Psycho 2, The Sting 2, Another 48 Hours) and there are times when the audience says, "Enough already!" (Rocky, Rambo, Superman, Lethal Weapon, Batman, Beverly Hills Cop — apparently Sylvester Stallone didn't get it as he is making another Rocky movie). And finally, some - including The Matrix - are not really sequels at all. The Star Wars saga and The Lord of the Rings trilogy fit into this category. They are merely one bit story broken up into different parts. A true sequel can stand on its' own. If you didn't see the original Matrix, you'd undoubtedly be confused watching Reloaded.
That being said, yes, Reloaded doesn't have the freshness of the original. The bullet-time effect is nothing new and the fight scenes are more intense, but are not much different than before. The scipt is at times, very hokey, and the performances are somewhat wooden, just as they were in the first film. So then why am I saying it's very good? well, because it is. The fight scenes are still exciting. The bullet time effects are still way cool, and there's a cast of characters involved that the audience truly cares about, despite their wooden performances. It's the second part of a 3 prong story, so we're left wanting of course, with a whole load of questions, but many of the questions we had prior to this installment are answered.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments