I think Matrix4 might give Revolutions a run for its money though, yet to see a revived series succeed.
Fury Road?
That's a total reboot, it doesn't bring back the same cast as the same characters 20-30 years later and try to pick up the same story.
The intention was to bring back Mel Gibson but then Mel Gibson happened. Though there's very little internal continuity between any of the Mad Max films - they're all reboots in a way.
Wait, is the drop in of the Wachowskis in that real?
Yes.
The entire game was a buggy piece of shit that never should have been released.
It's a game that somehow not just makes Bethesda look competent but nearly flawless as a developer.
When I found out that was real I was even more annoyed because imo the Wachowskis knew how shit it was and decided to insert themselves at the end because clearly no one would actually endure the game long enough to get that far.
Well shit. That is fairly crazy.
Also, having just gone back and watched The Matrix trilogy I agree with the sentiment that the first one is the only really good one. Both of the sequels generally feel like soulless husks of films.
Man, the Matrix sequels might not measure up to the original to various degrees and varying according to who's watching, but I'd never call them soulless. There are very clearly both lots of ideas from the Wachowskis crammed into and a lot of heart and inventiveness and attempts to push the envelope in their making.
Wait, is the drop in of the Wachowskis in that real?
Yes.
The entire game was a buggy piece of shit that never should have been released.
It's a game that somehow not just makes Bethesda look competent but nearly flawless as a developer.
When I found out that was real I was even more annoyed because imo the Wachowskis knew how shit it was and decided to insert themselves at the end because clearly no one would actually endure the game long enough to get that far.
So that final boss fight with Smith is like 5 QTEs?
Wait, is the drop in of the Wachowskis in that real?
Yes.
The entire game was a buggy piece of shit that never should have been released.
It's a game that somehow not just makes Bethesda look competent but nearly flawless as a developer.
When I found out that was real I was even more annoyed because imo the Wachowskis knew how shit it was and decided to insert themselves at the end because clearly no one would actually endure the game long enough to get that far.
Why would you assume the Wachowskis "know how shit is was"? And why would you assume the point where they decided to insert themselves like that into the game came after that point?
I thought it was funny how they admit that the plot didn't really have a fun ending for a video game.
I'm not even sure they are right. The ending to the Matrix is one giant fight before the moment where Neo sacrifices himself. You could just cut to cutscene before that point.
Personally Pirates of the Carribean is my "shame no sequels" thing.
Agreed. POTC was pretty damn perfect. If they'd jettisoned Will and Elizabeth and inserted anyone with charisma it would've been perfect. The story would've ended half way if Elizabeth hadn't taken Will's place, the pirates just cut Turner's hand, and the curse was ended. As it was, a bunch of people get killed by the still immortal pirates at the end of the film. I love the skeleton pirates and the curse is really interesting.
I liked all three Matrix flicks, I didn't mind the rave either. Sure the first is best, but likely because it was something new. The defense of the dock scene in the third one is pretty great, there's some really great scenes. The first three Pirates are good enough, the third is a bit long. The ones after that are ... not great and the last one is particularly not good. Honestly, the one with Ian McShane had one memorable scene in the whole thing - where they're fighting at the fountain and the Spanish show up. One guy who's barely been in all of the flicks, "That might be the finest pirate..." guy rushes the fountain with an English flag and loudly declares that he's claimed the fountain for king and country. He's immediately shot and killed, and the Spanish leader steps forward and advises someone, "Make note of that man's bravery."
+2
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
Long John Silver in Muppet's Treasure Island
I just watched Matrix 2 and 3 back to back. They both feel like movies trying way too hard to seem smart and philosophical, but there's no consistent internal logic and it just comes off as really dumb. They have none of the fun of the first film, instead opting for overly serious at all turns. Neo is somehow more wooden than the first film. The only character who is remotely interesting is Smith, and that's 100% on Hugo Weaving chewing the scenery into a fine paste.
Man, the Matrix sequels might not measure up to the original to various degrees and varying according to who's watching, but I'd never call them soulless. There are very clearly both lots of ideas from the Wachowskis crammed into and a lot of heart and inventiveness and attempts to push the envelope in their making.
They are honestly barely even coherent films. The introduction of the broader mythology of the universe comes out of nowhere and robs the first film of a lot of its creativity and uniqueness.
They are just all filler. Sure there are some interesting ideas and cool sequences but the actual throughline narrative is complete hogwash.
I also hate how in the sequels the take the matrix from being realistic to "haha the matrix is just a video game now" too.
Pirates really suffered by trying to explain the pirate lords and lore behind them and the supernatural shit. The first movie did a great job suggesting this huge world and then when you try to define it everything falls apart.
I think Matrix4 might give Revolutions a run for its money though, yet to see a revived series succeed.
Fury Road?
That's a total reboot, it doesn't bring back the same cast as the same characters 20-30 years later and try to pick up the same story.
The intention was to bring back Mel Gibson but then Mel Gibson happened. Though there's very little internal continuity between any of the Mad Max films - they're all reboots in a way.
Yeah, every Mad Max story is canon, but the point is that they're basically campfire legends. Whatever actually happened to Max and what he really looked like are lost to time, but his deeds are retold as epics by the generations after him.
For me, the Matrix movies are the epitome of the Wachowskis’ weakness. The same thing happened with Jupiter Ascending (which is a supremely fun and interesting movie even though it isn’t really a good one). They start with a solid set of basic ideas. Then they start expanding them in all directions and open up the idea-world with some really intriguing rabbit trails and then they realize “oh shit we only have thirty minutes of movie left” and they push everything into a basket and throw a bow on it, and it just isn’t really satisfying. Basically, they always bite off more ideas than their movies can actually chew, and whatever their setup for editing is doesn’t rein that in. Which is kind of a shame.
For me, the Matrix movies are the epitome of the Wachowskis’ weakness. The same thing happened with Jupiter Ascending (which is a supremely fun and interesting movie even though it isn’t really a good one). They start with a solid set of basic ideas. Then they start expanding them in all directions and open up the idea-world with some really intriguing rabbit trails and then they realize “oh shit we only have thirty minutes of movie left” and they push everything into a basket and throw a bow on it, and it just isn’t really satisfying. Basically, they always bite off more ideas than their movies can actually chew, and whatever their setup for editing is doesn’t rein that in. Which is kind of a shame.
Agreed and that's why I think Sense8 was so good. It found a cool concept in the central conceit for the show then focused in on the characters as a means of exploring that concept.
Man, the Matrix sequels might not measure up to the original to various degrees and varying according to who's watching, but I'd never call them soulless. There are very clearly both lots of ideas from the Wachowskis crammed into and a lot of heart and inventiveness and attempts to push the envelope in their making.
They are honestly barely even coherent films. The introduction of the broader mythology of the universe comes out of nowhere and robs the first film of a lot of its creativity and uniqueness.
They are just all filler. Sure there are some interesting ideas and cool sequences but the actual throughline narrative is complete hogwash.
I also hate how in the sequels the take the matrix from being realistic to "haha the matrix is just a video game now" too.
There's only a few things I'd call incoherent in the films. And little of what you are mentioning. A lot of the stuff you are talking about isn't filler, it's just extra details as the story expands upon the world of the machines themselves and begins to look at them as something other then just faceless monsters. Which is an important step towards where the series wants to go by the end of the 3rd film. Other details I think are I think there to set up the whole twist of the 2nd film wherein we discover that the entire system is a larger level of control. The actual narrative is quite clear for the whole 2nd film especially.
But what's really ludicrous imo is calling it filler. Or soulless. It's full of creativity, of interesting ideas and of the Wachowskis wanting to talk about something. It explores a bunch of threads left hanging from the first film and pulls them together in interesting and creative ways. The first film is really good and well put together but the sequels are messier but in some ways more interesting because of the ideas they are trying to tackle.
After he's blinded he can still "see" the machines in some way. But not from what I remember anything else.
Yeah. I thought that meant he ascended in some way and could see the make up or "code" of reality.
I didn't take it that way, rather that he can understand the machines on their level. He's achieved true insight into an alien being. I don't think 2 and 3 are particularly entertaining movies, but I agree with Shryke in that they are stuffed with ideas. They are more fun to consider than to sit through, in my opinion.
Neo can see and interact with the machines via unexplained magic in the real world, but he can't see anything else in the real world. For example, he can see the light of Smith's code inside Bane, but once he kills Bane, everything goes black.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
After he's blinded he can still "see" the machines in some way. But not from what I remember anything else.
Yeah. I thought that meant he ascended in some way and could see the make up or "code" of reality.
From other things in the 3rd film I'm pretty sure it's just part of Neo's connection to the Source and the machine world in general. It's the same way he could stop the killer robots at the end of the 2nd film.
Man, the Matrix sequels might not measure up to the original to various degrees and varying according to who's watching, but I'd never call them soulless. There are very clearly both lots of ideas from the Wachowskis crammed into and a lot of heart and inventiveness and attempts to push the envelope in their making.
They are honestly barely even coherent films. The introduction of the broader mythology of the universe comes out of nowhere and robs the first film of a lot of its creativity and uniqueness.
They are just all filler. Sure there are some interesting ideas and cool sequences but the actual throughline narrative is complete hogwash.
I also hate how in the sequels the take the matrix from being realistic to "haha the matrix is just a video game now" too.
There's only a few things I'd call incoherent in the films. And little of what you are mentioning. A lot of the stuff you are talking about isn't filler, it's just extra details as the story expands upon the world of the machines themselves and begins to look at them as something other then just faceless monsters. Which is an important step towards where the series wants to go by the end of the 3rd film. Other details I think are I think there to set up the whole twist of the 2nd film wherein we discover that the entire system is a larger level of control. The actual narrative is quite clear for the whole 2nd film especially.
But what's really ludicrous imo is calling it filler. Or soulless. It's full of creativity, of interesting ideas and of the Wachowskis wanting to talk about something. It explores a bunch of threads left hanging from the first film and pulls them together in interesting and creative ways. The first film is really good and well put together but the sequels are messier but in some ways more interesting because of the ideas they are trying to tackle.
There really are no threads left hanging from the first film. It's a nice and neat little package. That's why the sequels are so superfluous imo.
If you're into them, that's totally cool. I just think they're kind of dumb.
Man, the Matrix sequels might not measure up to the original to various degrees and varying according to who's watching, but I'd never call them soulless. There are very clearly both lots of ideas from the Wachowskis crammed into and a lot of heart and inventiveness and attempts to push the envelope in their making.
They are honestly barely even coherent films. The introduction of the broader mythology of the universe comes out of nowhere and robs the first film of a lot of its creativity and uniqueness.
They are just all filler. Sure there are some interesting ideas and cool sequences but the actual throughline narrative is complete hogwash.
I also hate how in the sequels the take the matrix from being realistic to "haha the matrix is just a video game now" too.
There's only a few things I'd call incoherent in the films. And little of what you are mentioning. A lot of the stuff you are talking about isn't filler, it's just extra details as the story expands upon the world of the machines themselves and begins to look at them as something other then just faceless monsters. Which is an important step towards where the series wants to go by the end of the 3rd film. Other details I think are I think there to set up the whole twist of the 2nd film wherein we discover that the entire system is a larger level of control. The actual narrative is quite clear for the whole 2nd film especially.
But what's really ludicrous imo is calling it filler. Or soulless. It's full of creativity, of interesting ideas and of the Wachowskis wanting to talk about something. It explores a bunch of threads left hanging from the first film and pulls them together in interesting and creative ways. The first film is really good and well put together but the sequels are messier but in some ways more interesting because of the ideas they are trying to tackle.
There really are no threads left hanging from the first film. It's a nice and neat little package. That's why the sequels are so superfluous imo.
If you're into them, that's totally cool. I just think they're kind of dumb.
The first film doesn't require a sequel but there's obvious hooks there if you wanted to make one.
Like, you talk about random characters added in the 2nd and 3rd film and yet the Oracle is right there randomly in the 1st film the exact same way. "We're gonna go into the Matrix and talk to a woman who sees the future or something. She's gonna dispense wise mysterious old person advice. No, we're never gonna explain this shit in this film."
And your complaint wasn't that they were dumb, which is why I didn't talk about that. You can not like them all you want. I was objecting to the idea that hey were soulless and filler and incoherent. I think they fairly obviously are not, regardless of whether you like them or not.
Was The Matrix intended to be a trilogy from the start? The first one certainly seemed to wrap everything up better than you usually see from intentional first-part movies.
Was The Matrix intended to be a trilogy from the start? The first one certainly seemed to wrap everything up better than you usually see from intentional first-part movies.
No, it was just a huge success so they added films.
Man, the Matrix sequels might not measure up to the original to various degrees and varying according to who's watching, but I'd never call them soulless. There are very clearly both lots of ideas from the Wachowskis crammed into and a lot of heart and inventiveness and attempts to push the envelope in their making.
They are honestly barely even coherent films. The introduction of the broader mythology of the universe comes out of nowhere and robs the first film of a lot of its creativity and uniqueness.
They are just all filler. Sure there are some interesting ideas and cool sequences but the actual throughline narrative is complete hogwash.
I also hate how in the sequels the take the matrix from being realistic to "haha the matrix is just a video game now" too.
There's only a few things I'd call incoherent in the films. And little of what you are mentioning. A lot of the stuff you are talking about isn't filler, it's just extra details as the story expands upon the world of the machines themselves and begins to look at them as something other then just faceless monsters. Which is an important step towards where the series wants to go by the end of the 3rd film. Other details I think are I think there to set up the whole twist of the 2nd film wherein we discover that the entire system is a larger level of control. The actual narrative is quite clear for the whole 2nd film especially.
But what's really ludicrous imo is calling it filler. Or soulless. It's full of creativity, of interesting ideas and of the Wachowskis wanting to talk about something. It explores a bunch of threads left hanging from the first film and pulls them together in interesting and creative ways. The first film is really good and well put together but the sequels are messier but in some ways more interesting because of the ideas they are trying to tackle.
There really are no threads left hanging from the first film. It's a nice and neat little package. That's why the sequels are so superfluous imo.
If you're into them, that's totally cool. I just think they're kind of dumb.
The first film doesn't require a sequel but there's obvious hooks there if you wanted to make one.
Like, you talk about random characters added in the 2nd and 3rd film and yet the Oracle is right there randomly in the 1st film the exact same way. "We're gonna go into the Matrix and talk to a woman who sees the future or something. She's gonna dispense wise mysterious old person advice. No, we're never gonna explain this shit in this film."
And your complaint wasn't that they were dumb, which is why I didn't talk about that. You can not like them all you want. I was objecting to the idea that hey were soulless and filler and incoherent. I think they fairly obviously are not, regardless of whether you like them or not.
I'm honestly not looking for a deep debate on this but The Oracle plays a fairly archetypical role in the first film. In the second, in the span of like 15 minutes they introduce: Persephone, The Merovengian, Werewolves(!?), and the Keymaster - some of whom are supposed to critical to how the matrix runs.
It's fine. It works. But it's like putting a spoiler on a Honda Civic.
I haven't seen the sequels since I saw them in the theater at release, so my recollections are all pretty stale, but I remember at the time feeling like there were two fundamental problems with them:
* Bullet Time was a new thing in The Matrix and was, rightly, I thought, applauded for how neat it was. They seemed to be desperately trying to find ways to reproduce that success in the sequels with new effects technology and both wound up feeling at times more like a tech demo than a movie.
* The sequels spent too much time in the real world. The Matrix made us care about the real world but also made it clear it's a fucking awful place to be, to the point that some people would rather subjugate themselves to the machines than live there. Also, the Matrix is where our heroes get to do all their super power cool shit. I come to Matrix movies for crazy wire-fu, not grungey people moshing and shooting robots.
The natural continuation from the first Matrix would, I'd have thought, been either escalating in-Matrix fighting between the machines and humanity as a virtual arms race takes off with the machines trying to react to Neo awakening and empowering humanity, or a 'layers of the universe onion' thing where it turns out 'reality' is a simulation as well and Neo tries to find his way to the Real, Real World.
What we got had a lot of ideas, as people have said, and had a fair number of cool moments, but felt like they were trying too hard to recreate the wildfire success of the original instead of just rolling out more of the same (which is, I think, ultimately what people (or at least me and my friends at the time) wanted).
Man, the Matrix sequels might not measure up to the original to various degrees and varying according to who's watching, but I'd never call them soulless. There are very clearly both lots of ideas from the Wachowskis crammed into and a lot of heart and inventiveness and attempts to push the envelope in their making.
They are honestly barely even coherent films. The introduction of the broader mythology of the universe comes out of nowhere and robs the first film of a lot of its creativity and uniqueness.
They are just all filler. Sure there are some interesting ideas and cool sequences but the actual throughline narrative is complete hogwash.
I also hate how in the sequels the take the matrix from being realistic to "haha the matrix is just a video game now" too.
There's only a few things I'd call incoherent in the films. And little of what you are mentioning. A lot of the stuff you are talking about isn't filler, it's just extra details as the story expands upon the world of the machines themselves and begins to look at them as something other then just faceless monsters. Which is an important step towards where the series wants to go by the end of the 3rd film. Other details I think are I think there to set up the whole twist of the 2nd film wherein we discover that the entire system is a larger level of control. The actual narrative is quite clear for the whole 2nd film especially.
But what's really ludicrous imo is calling it filler. Or soulless. It's full of creativity, of interesting ideas and of the Wachowskis wanting to talk about something. It explores a bunch of threads left hanging from the first film and pulls them together in interesting and creative ways. The first film is really good and well put together but the sequels are messier but in some ways more interesting because of the ideas they are trying to tackle.
There really are no threads left hanging from the first film. It's a nice and neat little package. That's why the sequels are so superfluous imo.
If you're into them, that's totally cool. I just think they're kind of dumb.
The first film doesn't require a sequel but there's obvious hooks there if you wanted to make one.
Like, you talk about random characters added in the 2nd and 3rd film and yet the Oracle is right there randomly in the 1st film the exact same way. "We're gonna go into the Matrix and talk to a woman who sees the future or something. She's gonna dispense wise mysterious old person advice. No, we're never gonna explain this shit in this film."
And your complaint wasn't that they were dumb, which is why I didn't talk about that. You can not like them all you want. I was objecting to the idea that hey were soulless and filler and incoherent. I think they fairly obviously are not, regardless of whether you like them or not.
I'm honestly not looking for a deep debate on this but The Oracle plays a fairly archetypical role in the first film. In the second, in the span of like 15 minutes they introduce: Persephone, The Merovengian, Werewolves(!?), and the Keymaster - some of whom are supposed to critical to how the matrix runs.
It's fine. It works. But it's like putting a spoiler on a Honda Civic.
The things you mention play just as archetypal roles. The Keymaker might as well be called "The MacGuffin". In the same way the Oracle is "the mysterious dispenser of plot and foreshadowing" and amusingly they basically name her that too.
I haven't seen the sequels since I saw them in the theater at release, so my recollections are all pretty stale, but I remember at the time feeling like there were two fundamental problems with them:
* Bullet Time was a new thing in The Matrix and was, rightly, I thought, applauded for how neat it was. They seemed to be desperately trying to find ways to reproduce that success in the sequels with new effects technology and both wound up feeling at times more like a tech demo than a movie.
* The sequels spent too much time in the real world. The Matrix made us care about the real world but also made it clear it's a fucking awful place to be, to the point that some people would rather subjugate themselves to the machines than live there. Also, the Matrix is where our heroes get to do all their super power cool shit. I come to Matrix movies for crazy wire-fu, not grungey people moshing and shooting robots.
The natural continuation from the first Matrix would, I'd have thought, been either escalating in-Matrix fighting between the machines and humanity as a virtual arms race takes off with the machines trying to react to Neo awakening and empowering humanity, or a 'layers of the universe onion' thing where it turns out 'reality' is a simulation as well and Neo tries to find his way to the Real, Real World.
What we got had a lot of ideas, as people have said, and had a fair number of cool moments, but felt like they were trying too hard to recreate the wildfire success of the original instead of just rolling out more of the same (which is, I think, ultimately what people (or at least me and my friends at the time) wanted).
Your second point is one of the things I never liked about Revolutions. Way too little Matrix stuff.
I always felt like the point where it really breaks is where Neo somehow kills the machines with his mind in the real world at the end of the 2nd film and then the 3rd film kinda doesn't answer that in a good or satisfying way.
Posts
The intention was to bring back Mel Gibson but then Mel Gibson happened. Though there's very little internal continuity between any of the Mad Max films - they're all reboots in a way.
Well shit. That is fairly crazy.
Also, having just gone back and watched The Matrix trilogy I agree with the sentiment that the first one is the only really good one. Both of the sequels generally feel like soulless husks of films.
Steam | XBL
So that final boss fight with Smith is like 5 QTEs?
Why would you assume the Wachowskis "know how shit is was"? And why would you assume the point where they decided to insert themselves like that into the game came after that point?
You'd best start believing in sequels Mister Turner, you're in one
D3 Steam #TeamTangent STO
I'm not even sure they are right. The ending to the Matrix is one giant fight before the moment where Neo sacrifices himself. You could just cut to cutscene before that point.
Agreed. POTC was pretty damn perfect. If they'd jettisoned Will and Elizabeth and inserted anyone with charisma it would've been perfect. The story would've ended half way if Elizabeth hadn't taken Will's place, the pirates just cut Turner's hand, and the curse was ended. As it was, a bunch of people get killed by the still immortal pirates at the end of the film. I love the skeleton pirates and the curse is really interesting.
They are honestly barely even coherent films. The introduction of the broader mythology of the universe comes out of nowhere and robs the first film of a lot of its creativity and uniqueness.
They are just all filler. Sure there are some interesting ideas and cool sequences but the actual throughline narrative is complete hogwash.
I also hate how in the sequels the take the matrix from being realistic to "haha the matrix is just a video game now" too.
The Sequels - "Here's a Keymaster, a Merovengian, a new Oracle (I know), a little girl, an Architect, some ghost twins, an angel, etc etc."
It's just bloated nonsense.
Jack sparrow wouldn't be a lord of anything.
It's anime. It was live action anime.
So same thing then!
Yeah, every Mad Max story is canon, but the point is that they're basically campfire legends. Whatever actually happened to Max and what he really looked like are lost to time, but his deeds are retold as epics by the generations after him.
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
Agreed and that's why I think Sense8 was so good. It found a cool concept in the central conceit for the show then focused in on the characters as a means of exploring that concept.
There's only a few things I'd call incoherent in the films. And little of what you are mentioning. A lot of the stuff you are talking about isn't filler, it's just extra details as the story expands upon the world of the machines themselves and begins to look at them as something other then just faceless monsters. Which is an important step towards where the series wants to go by the end of the 3rd film. Other details I think are I think there to set up the whole twist of the 2nd film wherein we discover that the entire system is a larger level of control. The actual narrative is quite clear for the whole 2nd film especially.
But what's really ludicrous imo is calling it filler. Or soulless. It's full of creativity, of interesting ideas and of the Wachowskis wanting to talk about something. It explores a bunch of threads left hanging from the first film and pulls them together in interesting and creative ways. The first film is really good and well put together but the sequels are messier but in some ways more interesting because of the ideas they are trying to tackle.
At least that is what I got out of it.
After he's blinded he can still "see" the machines in some way. But not from what I remember anything else.
Yeah. I thought that meant he ascended in some way and could see the make up or "code" of reality.
I didn't take it that way, rather that he can understand the machines on their level. He's achieved true insight into an alien being. I don't think 2 and 3 are particularly entertaining movies, but I agree with Shryke in that they are stuffed with ideas. They are more fun to consider than to sit through, in my opinion.
From other things in the 3rd film I'm pretty sure it's just part of Neo's connection to the Source and the machine world in general. It's the same way he could stop the killer robots at the end of the 2nd film.
There really are no threads left hanging from the first film. It's a nice and neat little package. That's why the sequels are so superfluous imo.
If you're into them, that's totally cool. I just think they're kind of dumb.
The first film doesn't require a sequel but there's obvious hooks there if you wanted to make one.
Like, you talk about random characters added in the 2nd and 3rd film and yet the Oracle is right there randomly in the 1st film the exact same way. "We're gonna go into the Matrix and talk to a woman who sees the future or something. She's gonna dispense wise mysterious old person advice. No, we're never gonna explain this shit in this film."
And your complaint wasn't that they were dumb, which is why I didn't talk about that. You can not like them all you want. I was objecting to the idea that hey were soulless and filler and incoherent. I think they fairly obviously are not, regardless of whether you like them or not.
No, it was just a huge success so they added films.
I'm honestly not looking for a deep debate on this but The Oracle plays a fairly archetypical role in the first film. In the second, in the span of like 15 minutes they introduce: Persephone, The Merovengian, Werewolves(!?), and the Keymaster - some of whom are supposed to critical to how the matrix runs.
It's fine. It works. But it's like putting a spoiler on a Honda Civic.
* Bullet Time was a new thing in The Matrix and was, rightly, I thought, applauded for how neat it was. They seemed to be desperately trying to find ways to reproduce that success in the sequels with new effects technology and both wound up feeling at times more like a tech demo than a movie.
* The sequels spent too much time in the real world. The Matrix made us care about the real world but also made it clear it's a fucking awful place to be, to the point that some people would rather subjugate themselves to the machines than live there. Also, the Matrix is where our heroes get to do all their super power cool shit. I come to Matrix movies for crazy wire-fu, not grungey people moshing and shooting robots.
The natural continuation from the first Matrix would, I'd have thought, been either escalating in-Matrix fighting between the machines and humanity as a virtual arms race takes off with the machines trying to react to Neo awakening and empowering humanity, or a 'layers of the universe onion' thing where it turns out 'reality' is a simulation as well and Neo tries to find his way to the Real, Real World.
What we got had a lot of ideas, as people have said, and had a fair number of cool moments, but felt like they were trying too hard to recreate the wildfire success of the original instead of just rolling out more of the same (which is, I think, ultimately what people (or at least me and my friends at the time) wanted).
The things you mention play just as archetypal roles. The Keymaker might as well be called "The MacGuffin". In the same way the Oracle is "the mysterious dispenser of plot and foreshadowing" and amusingly they basically name her that too.
Your second point is one of the things I never liked about Revolutions. Way too little Matrix stuff.
I always felt like the point where it really breaks is where Neo somehow kills the machines with his mind in the real world at the end of the 2nd film and then the 3rd film kinda doesn't answer that in a good or satisfying way.