<div style='font: 14pt "Sans Serif"; text-align: justify; padding: 0% 15% 0% 15%; '>Perfect example: Kill Bill. Some people see it as mindless action with a dumb plot, where as people who "know" that understand that it's a homage. This doesn't make them better people. It doesn't make the movie meaningless. It just makes it different from your typical flick.
If you didn't understand this, then you simply are not going to see Kill Bill the same way. Regardless of whether you enjoy the movie, there's still going to be a whole subtext that you miss out on that will always prevent you from *fully* enjoying (or hating) the film. Anyway, on to my response to your post.
You start from the assumption that understanding Reloaded's philosophy is essential to enjoying and understanding the movie. I disagree. Philosophy or no, Reloaded is a very simple film. One doesn't need to know about gnosticism or religious metaphors, genealogies of Greek words and concepts and Derrida to comprehend it. From a dramatic point of view, Reloaded goes like this:
Actually, I don't start with that assumption at all. I always make an effort to say that you have to understand the philosophy (which is not Reloaded's per se; it's a mish mash a other stuff) to get the *full impact*. I know people who liked it just fine without understanding any of the philosophical underpinnings or knowing that it had any philosphical underpinnings at all! That's what the cool fight scenes and car chases are for after all (not that I'm putting myself on a pedestel because I geeked out over all that too).
<div class=msg-quote>1.) Neo and Gang need to find the Key.
2.) They talk about needing to find the key.
3.) They fight guys who don't want them to find the key.
4.) They get the Key.
5.) They use the Key.
6.) Neo talks with a guy who wants him to fail.
7.) Neo doesn't fail; makes a choice.
8.) Uh-oh! Zion's in trouble.
9.) Neo realizes that there's more to the Matrix than he originally imagined. Roll credits. Wait for Revolutions.</div>
Well...yes...
And there you have it. Reloaded is a very simple story that's infused with a cartload of philosophical references that, while interesting, do not add very much to the film's dramatic structure. The movie's structure is pretty bare, with little in the way of character development or plot twists to make things more interesting. Trinity remains pretty much the same individual she was at the end of the first movie. So does Morpheus. So does Neo, although his faith in his own ability to make meaningful decisions is tested. The new characters, Nairobi and the others, are neither interesting nor deep.
I'd venture to guess that you didn't get as many of the "cartload of philosophical references" as you think, but since I can't read your mind (YET!!!!), I can't really comment on it too much. ;)
Anyway, you're pretty much wrong on most other counts. All the characters main characters change dramatically from the first movie. Morpheus goes from faithful warrior/priest/what-have-you to a shocked shell of a man when he finds out that everything he believes is a lie. None of Neo's decisions are meaningless. The decisions he makes will determine whether what happens with the current iteration of the Matrix will be teh same as the previouis 6. And many of the new characters are among the most interesting in any movie (esp the Merovingian and the Architect ). As for Nairobi...OK, so you got one right. :)
Reloaded's plot is little more than a mess of contrivances and bloated conceits. Why does Neo spend ten minutes fighting endless clones of Agent Smith when he could zoom away at Mach 10 whenever he felt like it? Because the Wachowski brothers wanted to have a REALLY AWESOME WOW scene where Neo, assisted by wires and some pretty silly looking CG, fights hundreds of Agent Smiths. Why does Neo waste his time fighting Eurotrash with medieval weapons? Because the Wachowski brothers wanted a scene with Neo fighting Eurotrash with medieval weapons. Because they knew that, if Neo really exercised his powers as "The One" to their fullest extent, there wouldn't be much of a movie.
Actually, all of these have explanations. The Bros W just weren't nice enough to go yelling them to you with flashy neon signs pointing to them.
Q: Why doesn't Neo just destroy the Smiths like he did in the first movie?
Answer: He's not the same Smith. Hugo goes into one of his cool monologues explaining just exactly how badass he is and how he's going to kick Neo's and everybody else's ass.
Q: Why does Neo fight the Eurotrash Gang of Superheroes?
Answer: You could call these accidental upgrades. They're glitches or different programs from different versions of the Matrix and the same rules don't apply to them. You get about 3 or 4 sentences from the Oracle explaining them and that's it.
Anyway, I'd argue that Neo DID use his powers to the fullest extent in both cases. But he's not God and essentially a Matrix construct.
To sum, the dramatic engine that drives Reloaded--which is entirely distinct from its philosophical superstructure--is a plodding mess. You imply that people didn't like the film because they didn't "get" it--as though all the country's finest critics simply stumbled out of theaters scratching their heads and saying, "Golly, I just don't get it. That film didn't make a lick of sense, so I'm going to write a real bad review of it!" In fact, they "got" Reloaded only too well. The critics who knew what they were talking about saw right through the film's thin facade and labeled it a bloated action movie with a thin plot covered up by a host of philosophical references. I concur.
I've noticed whether you like the film or not is independent of whether you "get it"...which again, is why I'm always careful to stress that you have to understand the philosophical undertones to *fully enjoy* the film(see Kill Bill example). However, I think there's a huge section of the Matrix hating public that don't like it because they:
(A) don't understand the philosophical undertones and/or
(B)Missed almost every *non*-philosophical plot point in the movie because the Bros. W don't spend much effort trying to get the audience to keep up. (see, why he doesn't destroy Smiths, why he isn't all powerful, etc).
And don't give the critics "who knew what they are talking about" too much credit. The reviews on this film were almost universally bad, regardless of whether the critic enjoyed the film (see, Harry Knowle's review at Aint It Cool News).</div>