To my mind, the animatrix was a better successor to the matrix than the sequels ever were. (Then again, just about anything would be.) It showcases the history of the matrix, pleads a case for the machine, and shows life in the matrix. It's an underwatched not-quite-masterpiece that is still excellent.
I recently re-watched the sequels and came to find myself puzzled by the amount of vitriol they receive. Can you explain what your objection to them were? I found them at least entertaining, and consistent with the original. They were by no means above criticism, but I certainly don't think they deserve the level of scorn you typically see.
Matrix: What if we are all living in a simulation and don't know it? What does this mean for the human existence and how we perceive it?
Animatrix: What if we get so smart we build machines that are so advanced that we can discriminate against them? What happens when humans create life and expect that life to remain servile?
The Matrix Reloaded: What if we fleshed out this world to show multiple societies co-existing, although not entirely peacefully? What if we throw a bunch of rehashed dialog from other science fiction films? What if we change the style to be slicker? Can we pull it off if we inject just enough substance to make people want to watch a third movie?
The Matrix Revolutions: Take the wheel, I have no idea how to end things but there should be some massive fight scenes. Ka-CHING, baby.
They are probably not bad movies, and the high-way action scene is amazing, but I'm not really sure there was anything to those movies other than that.
When the first movie was so mind blowing (which it probably isn't today) then some good special effects a great action scene or two and mediocre story is not going to look like decent action movie, but more like an atrocity.