Yes.

On the one hand, yes, the Reformation was a mass-movement, as leaders like Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin attracted huge numbers of followers who were engaged by new versions of their faith that promised to put them in closer touch with their God (not least of all by means of a Bible translated into the vernacular) while simultaneously addressing the myriad problems corruption had introduced to the Church. Of course, even translating the Bible into the vernacular only exposed the literate to the Word, but it still represented a massive improvement, and was indicative of the spirit of the Reformation.

On the other hand, yes, the Reformation was introduced by individuals with a certain degree of education and status and, more importantly, supported by princes across Europe with real political power, many of whom saw in the Reformation the chance to increase that power at the expense of the Church and, in much of central Europe, the Holy Roman Empire.

These two strands were not always compatible, as in the German Peasants' War.

The Reformation was very much reminiscent of other heretical movements that arose not just as religious projects for spiritual rebirth, but also as part of a wider anti-feudal struggle in Central Europe. Taborites, for example, were a revolutionary part of the Hussite national liberation movement against the German nobility in Bohemia. They got their name because they withdrew to Mount Tabor and founded a new town and center to mount resistance. The story goes that when they got to Prague, they opened up chests and asked everyone to pool in their possessions to collectively share. The Cathars and Waldenses also had similar leveling tendencies and attacked the Church as an institution of feudalism.

Depending on where you are looking it was both! 'The Reformation' is not really one event that just happened all at once. Every European country had its own reformation, situated within the context of and responded to 'The Reformation' (ie an intellectual movement).

I recently wrote a dissertation on a topic very similar to this. I was forced to conclude that whether instigated from the top, or the bottom of society (depending on regional political and economic dynamics) every reformation was about one thing. That is to say that it was a response to the intellectual movement established first by Luther and then his successors (in the form of Zwingli and Calvin etc) which questioned the practices of the Catholic Church. The Church was not primarily questioned because peasants didn't want to pay tithes or princes wanted to plunder some monastery gold (although these are also mitigating factors) it was challenged because many of the faithful had sincere doubts about whether the Church was fulfilling the role given to it by Jesus Christ. So while many historians will insist on trudging through tomes of theology in order to understand what sparked 'The Reformation' they are largely missing what is in front of them. Then as now we are motivated by private conscience, there are people today, as in the sixteenth century, who think the Catholic Church is way out of line with Scripture.

Therefore I conclude that the Reformation was neither imposed from above or below, rather it was inspired from within the conscience of every dissenting Christian.

(Hope the ending wasn't too cheesy there)