I honestly do not know how they let the Matrix trilogy end up the way it did - first was awesome, everyone got pumped about the second one and people hated it and then the third just flopped in my opinion.
WHY do they do that to movies? WHY do sequels suck so hard?
I can't really think of a sequel that was as good as or better than the first except Iron Man 2.
Well, you and I can definitely agree on the suckiness of the "Matrix" sequels. Here are some examples to challenge the prevailing sequels-suck theory:
"Aliens" is better than "Alien"
"Terminator 2" is better than "Terminator"
"Star Trek 2: Wrath of Khan" is better than "Star Trek"
"The Two Towers" is better than "Fellowship of the Ring"
"Godfather 2" is better than "Godfather"
"Last Crusade" is better than "Raiders of the Lost Ark"
"Empire Strikes Back" is better than the original "Star Wars"
"X-Men 2" is better than "X-Men"
"Dark Knight" is better than "Batman Begins"
"Spiderman 2" is better than "Spiderman"
"Pirates of the Carribean 2" is better than "Pirates of the Carribean"
"Lethal Weapon 4" is better than "Lethal Weapon"
"Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" is better than "Harry Potter and the Scorcers Stone"
"Superman 2" is better than "Superman"
"Christmas Vacation" is better than "Vacation"
"Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me" is better than "Austin Powers"
"The Road Warrior" is better than "Mad Max"
"Dawn of the Dead" is better than "Night of the Living Dead"
"Mission Impossible 3" is better than "Mission Impossible"
"Patriot Games" is better than "The Hunt for Red October"
"Prince Caspian" is better than "The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe"