They're making a Matrix 5.

[Dragonus45]

we are arguing about the nature of time like the end of history or cyclic time where systems adapt around thing they can not digest fully, thus we can trace the cycles for how the system deals with irritants (like making them into a pearl, the grain of sand), is traceable / trackable. Thus history has not ended.

*shrug*

I'm sorry could you clarify what you mean here?

@Dragonus45: the Two Towers might not be the best example, but I didn't pick it randomly: I have seen it criticized for precisely the flaw you lay at the feet of Reloaded. Comparing where Two Towers succeeds in a way Reloaded doesn't is useful, but it doesn't answer the underlying question: does every movie truly have to be able to stand alone?

Is it charging me full price for entry and running for a feature length amount of time? Then yes. A film needs to stand up as a complete movie even when it's a sequel or a middle child. You really can't take an extra long movie chop it in half part way through and then call it "complete". Also I lay a lot of flaws at the feet of reloaded I might need clarification here on which one also applies to Two Towers.

and yes I am a sucker for a love story and the freedom to try again

You keep saying this, but a movie being up your alley doesn't make it good in it's own right. It just means it's something you are more likely to overlook it's myriad flaws.