“The Matrix Revolutions” proves a theory: “The Matrix” is a fluke.

“The Matrix” is inventive in its display of kung-fu sequences and a marvel of special effects. It’s such a trip to see slow motion put to good use.

But “The Matrix” was released four years ago, and the sequels spawned by it, especially “Revolutions,” have offered nothing more than leftovers. What once tasted good is now dry and lukewarm.

“Revolutions” almost has a plot: The machine army continues to eat its way toward Zion, the imminent war now a disturbing reality. To save their city, and the world, Neo (Reeves) and Trinity (Moss) take their ship to the city of the machines to stop Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving) from the destruction of mankind. Meanwhile, Morpheus (Fishburne) and Niobe (Jada Pinkett-Smith) stick around to defend Zion against the quarter-million Sentinels attacking the city’s outer walls.

In short, there’s explosions, gunfights and kung-fu battles to fill in the rest of the two-hour-plus runtime. But these aren’t all bad things.

“Revolutions” makes up for the shortcomings of its plot for the jaw-dropping action sequences. An early gunfight, recalling the technical brilliance of the original’s climactic gun battle, has Morpheus and Trinity dodging bullets from henchmen, performing ballet off the walls and ceiling.

The true action spectacle of the film is the machines’ attack on Zion. Armed in lethargic robotic machines, Zionites spray endless bullets at the Sentinels as they breach the dome of their city. Eventually, the Sentinels become too much to handle, swarming into the area like multiple serpents escaping a basket. The trailblazing aftermath speaks for itself.

However, the action is one of the few aspects “Revolutions” has going for it.

“Revolutions” succeeds as an enormously entertaining action picture, though it falls short of the rewarding benefit of the original installment.

Void of the philosophical repartee of the original, we’ve been left with the burden of coming up with our own conclusions. It seems writer-directors Andy and Larry Wachowski have mashed a lot of stuff together, hoping it would make sense, and people would come up with their own ideas (hence “Revolutions”). The trouble is, they never really supply groundwork to form a basis.

Characters instead pop up, offering some form of explanation, and then disappear again. I would have preferred it if Oliver Stone showed up and gave his opinion on what happened. Then it would make sense, because the same faults apply in his films. Also, this way, the audience would be spared the ridiculous Looney Tunes-ish fight between Neo and Agent Smith.

Did the Wachowski Brothers come up with something more thought provoking in the three-year gap between productions, lose it in frustration and use the predecessors as an end to employ action?

I guess you could consider that a philosophical thought, given Kant would say this is a violation of universal law: Through the maxim of fooling audiences and thereby making millions upon millions of dollars, the Wachowski Brothers have employed slow-motion kung-fu fights as mere means to an end of completing their trilogy.

Therefore, “The Matrix” is a fluke indeed. It has two supplemental films following it that do not continue the same story, but rather offer feasts for the eyes. “Reloaded” offers mystique, and upon second viewing, some coherence.

“The Matrix Revolutions” somewhat answers questions posed by its predecessors, but it would be a stretch to say that anyone should really care about them.