'We few. We happy few. We band of brothers…' Words written by Shakespeare for Henry V and his merry band at Agincourt, but the fraternity amongst many of those attending the May 12th press screening of Matrix Reloaded was the same.

We knew we were lucky, the envy of most pop culture aficionados (which is everybody, isn't it?!) and fellow maniacs for the original, The Matrix - one of the most original, stylized, and mature science fiction features in decades.

Expectations entering the theatre were as lofty as the film's budget. Its predecessor was an unexpected hit for Warner Brothers that became the biggest in its history. It also dealt originally with questions of empiricism, existence, technological advancement, and human purpose (those unfamiliar with the original are asking: 'Uh, is he talking about a Keanu Reeves film?!' 'YES, INDEED I AM!').

In fact, Harvard University has dedicated an undergraduate philosophy course to studying The Matrix. The film's creators, the Wachowski Brothers, have refused to do interviews or comment on the meaning of the Matrix films because they consider them 'art', and want to leave them to individual interpretation. Certainly, The Matrix sets itself apart from the pack.

So, how is Reloaded? It's good. Very good, by action movie standards. But, as a truly intelligent film, like it predecessor? It's not great. There are vignettes that bear the mark of the first's ingenuity, but as a whole piece of 'art' (as the Wachowskis would have it) it simply doesn't hold.

Now, most will see it for the action sequences, and will need the long portions of exposition and references to plot merely for respite. Nothing wrong with that. So, let's look at the action.

Oh, the action. These guys continue to push the envelope. The Brothers marry the Hong Kong school of fast fists with camera angles and special effects of their own creation. The sequences are carefully coordinated with music - accelerating, decelerating, and accelerating again - with the sole objective of sensory overload. They've done some sort of neurological research because the body responds. The chills feel inevitable.

Visually, the famous Wachowskis eyes-for-detail are as keen as ever. Every frame is considered, and none wasted. Look at the symmetry in a number of the sequences, the lighting, the costumes, and the ornate sets. Their notoriously obsessive and often difficult nature (if reports from the set can be believed) pays off. Nothing is left to chance. The results are a number of polished cinematic jewels for the eye to behold.

There is a lot of plot to take in. The Brothers assume much more of their audience than even Peter Jackson did with his Lord of the Rings trilogy - it's not enough to have seen the first film and paid attention, you had to really GET IT (which took several viewings, in my case).

But on closer inspection, does the story hold up? Ironically, it is those who did GET IT in the first that will be most disappointed. I'll simply say that the complexity continues, with a major twist at the end, but the depth does not. There doesn't seem to be any further questions asked, just more intricate replies given. The dialogue between Neo and a new character, The Architect, left my head spinning. I'll see it again, just so I can confidentially say that I have some idea of what's going on!

But most of the action lies dormant. It's meaningless. In one particular action scene (which is in all the trailers and press materials, so this is NOT a spoiler!), one must ask why Reeves' character of Neo would bother fighting a few hundred Agent Smiths if he can just fly away. Indeed, he does, and the Smiths's reaction to it had the audience in my theatre laughing aloud.

Either the end of that scene was a clear acknowledgement from the Brothers that the fight was gratuitous, or from the characters that they fought just because they wanted to - an original, but empty motivation. Regardless, the audience wasn't buying it - they were laughing at the film, not with it. Once they cottoned on, even the kung fu became downright boring. Why bother?

Reloaded's action has no pay-off. The cool scenes just don't seem to be held together by anything substantial. It's almost as if the Brothers decided to exorcise the action of any plot points - just turning the cool on and off, interspersed them with drab scenes (that usually contain a lot of bad wool) where all the story lines are lumped together into some really leaden dialogue.

Speaking of leaden, there are the new characters. George Lucas, the creator of Jar Jar Binks, must be pleased that these new, younger masters of sci-fi are also capable of offering up such a superfluous source of irritation in the form of the character titled 'The Kid'. A French-like aristocrat provides some amusing, high-minded dialogue, (and serves up a wonderful dessert in one of the better scenes of the movie), but that's it. Monica Bellucci's Persephone is magnificent eye candy, but it's still just candy.

Thankfully, the original characters still stand up. The late Gloria Foster returns briefly as the Oracle, lending her wit and her presence. Hugo Weaving revels in his role(s) as the dastardly Agent Smith(s). And there is a pleasant surprise in the chemistry between Reeves and his co-star and love interest, Trinity, played by B.C.'s Carrie Ann Moss. I didn't see it in The Matrix, but it's certainly there in the sequel! Their major love scene is quite -- memorable. And long.

Brace yourself for a sudden, cliffhanger ending that ends with the words: 'To Be Concluded'. And it will be, in November, with Matrix: Revelations. (Better than the three year wait for Return of the Jedi). Reloaded is the first half of a five-hour complete movie, so maybe I shouldn't be so quick to judge. Maybe I should give the Brothers the benefit of the doubt. But I remain a concerned fan.

The beauty of the first, or of any good film, is the marriage of plot and emotion to visual presentation. The heralded action scenes of Reloaded simply don't carry the story forward at all, as they did, say, in The Lord of the Rings. They're empty, so there's little emotional investment.

Maybe my physical reaction to the film is the best metaphor: I left the theatre literally blown away. I walked aimlessly. I forgot my car. I gushed and sung the movie's praises to friends and family.

Then I went to bed, and slowly, the next day, the effects wore off. The rush disappeared. And I forgot about it. That didn't happen with The Matrix. It certainly never happens with Shakespeare. That's because those are great stories.