I think the Matrix sequels were released during a bit of a lag in CGI and cinema culture, where what was featured wasn’t as “new” or eye-opening as in the first Matrix film.

In terms of CGI and storytelling, there was nothing even close to the Matrix before that movie came out. I try to suppose why, though I thoroughly enjoy 2 & 3 and don’t understand the less-than-favorable reviews from fans & critics at the time of release. It might be that the scifi-dystopian story goes into a greater fantasy sphere, or lens in 2/3 and 3/3. The first film is still grounded within a - at the time - somewhat surreal, but captivating alternate reality that is the war-zone for counter-culture revolutionaries… where the next films are drawing the mystery to a close, and - in my opinion - makes it very difficult not to come off as shallow(er) in the sense of conflict / resolution.

I think the issue is appreciating the films as standalone chapters, grading them as such, versus seeing them all as a saga. I definitely think in terms of the latter. For example, I won’t even bother trying to say which LOTR film is the best, as I see them all as a cohesive unit of an epic tale. Sure, certain elements shine in certain conditions but, generally there isn’t a “first one” without seeing the others, as well.