It is common, especially for Hollywood, to churn out a sequel that is not as good as its original blockbuster. Watch the very weak Men in Black 2 to understand this completely in contrast to its witty sci-fi comedy of an original. However, after viewing such a flawed fantasy, I recommend this is how low you can go to make a horrible sequel! Choppy editing. The camera work was poor! You name a flaw in film-making and realise how many you can find in this doomed project. This is a visual guide how not to make film, unless of course you are a studio executive, who couldn't care less that such a film is bad, but a money-making venture for its franchise. As you cannot tell, I think this is how such a poor sequel was introduced.
So, what did I hate about this film? Was it the fact that they tried to be more creative than its predecessor? Yes, by the bowl full! In the original they at least had someone who gave an "animated performance" to the main character, who pulls all sorts of codes and convention from the world of Hollywood animation. I am talking of no one but some Canadian comedian known as Jim Carrey, in a role I thought was suitable for his brand of goofy talents. However, viewing the Son of the Mask, they fail to impress me with such antics that I could not stand any more, and cringed for every time such an antic was performed.
Was another reason the fact got anything to do with the plot of a struggling animator wanting his idea to become a show? Through that perspective, I guess not. But this sub-plot failed to make such a focus on the narrative of this film, instead they went to re-invent the antics that made The Mask entertaining, that I couldn't even care less about this animation-orientated sub-plot. Also, the fact is the film focuses on Poki trying to get that Mask back to his father was the main narrative. In fact, because of that narrative, the filmmakers, who I do not want to hear about unless they make something really worth watching, the excuse to proceed such badly-timed antics.
While on the subject of the main narrative, I will have a moan about costumes; that god's outfit looked so cheap and nasty that I think an amateur drama society could make a better job than that piece of ghastly clothing.
Also, while we are on the subject of the god, I found some dialogue either poorly written or badly acted. It was hard to tell. So I will blame both such a script that relied on the clichés of a family film to make the film have some continuity. Although from viewing this, I wished the writers had writer's block and go on to write something else. I will also put blame on some of the actors and actresses. Actually, I won't blame them; performing such rubbish deserves recognition, which will unfortunately be a Razzie Award. Well, the actor that played the god was terrible and so unknowingly, that I wish someone with much better acting training had the role. But I hope Brian Blessed will have turned down that role at such a sight of a poor project.
There you go. I have survived watching such rubbish, and hopefully go on and have a better life, and hopefully forgetting that such a flawed film even existed. But they do say, with bad films, that it is so bad it's good. That will never apply to this pointless sequel to The Mask.
1 out of 8 found this helpful