A little disclaimer: I have never been a fan of the original Mask or Jim Carrey, and I don’t understand or share the excitement. Therefore, the sequel will be evaluated without regard to the “flawed original”, because I mostly don’t care.
As for the Son, it seems to me that the original creators had two paths. Spoiler: Both would be financially a failure, but would have different artistic value. The first is to make a boring, stupid, toothless movie that gets lost in a bunch of bad sequels. The audience would spit, be disappointed, but it would be the same "family-e-eye picture" (which sooner or later, perhaps, would find its connoisseurs). The second way is to twist the abomination and absurdity to the maximum, completely scoring on the comfort of the viewer (a good landmark is the scene with spermatosaurus, cut in the American version). In this case, the film would have poured out five times more sludge, but it would already be a full-fledged grotesque - the kind of it when "so bad that it is already good." Such a picture would become legendary in its own way and perhaps change our views on the sequels.
I think the creators initially chose the second option, but at some point they chickened out and decided to smooth out the corners. It didn't work either way. Too nauseating for normal comedy, but too dull for something beyond monstrous.
But the cast of norms, only here it was not much to work with: if the film as a whole is dull, the actors will not stretch it. But I don't understand why everyone hates Jamie Kennedy so much; I think he's a pretty good character who's slowly being driven crazy. I heard he had a nervous breakdown on set. I don’t know if it’s true, but you can believe that when you realize that you’re doing a thrash that you’ll remember for years to come, it won’t be like that. The only moments when his play sags are the episodes where the hero puts on a mask (you can imagine how terrible and uncomfortable the makeup is). Cumming is a stronger figure in terms of career, but managed to light up in several thrash films, so the question “how did he subscribe to such horror” I do not arise. The grotesque is his path, and it can be seen that he clarifies as much as he can, but again, the rest of the film does not reach this bar.
But here's what I'm complaining about, is re-voicing. Who even thought of calling Alexei Colgan to duplicate Loki? The wildest miscast. This is more a voice like Vadim Andreev (the donkey from Shrek) or there in extreme cases Dmitry Filimonov.
By the way, I'm not even sure I saw the movie as a kid. Maybe I did, but in those years there was so much average lousy stupid comedy that Son of the Mask could just get lost in memory and mixed with other tapes.
But for all the dull disgust, the film has its pluses. Just look at how much material for stem reviews he has spawned! I think if a painting attracts that much attention, there's value in it, too.
Despite the fact that the original series of comics, which tells about the mysterious artifact known as the “Mask”, had very few issues, its circulation never lay on bookshelves. Readers liked the idea of Mike Richardson, expanded by writer John Arcudy and artist Doug Mankey, telling the story of the amazing transformation of ordinary people who were lucky enough to have an amazing magical thing that can endow its owners with completely unimaginable powers. And despite the fact that under the influence of the mask, a person does not have the opportunity to control his impulses, it was repeatedly put on and thereby provoked hilarious adventures that I wanted to carefully study from the first page to the last. Publishing house Dark Horse, one of the first to publish the creation of Richardson and the company, quite quickly noticed the full potential of the story, but it was decided not to exceed the bar of the planned release, so that the “Mask” readers will not get bored. When in 1994, based on popular comics, the film of the same name by Chuck Russell was released, the fame of “Masks” became truly limitless. And it happened not least thanks to the enchanting game of Jim Carrey, who played the most important owner of an outlandish artifact, able to turn his humble owner into the king of the party. The film turned out to be so flashy and positive that viewers repeatedly went to theaters, watched it at home on video media and continued to actively buy comics, which periodically went out of print and thereby strengthened the mythology of “Masks” in modern popular culture. And it was natural to expect that after such inspiring results producers decided to launch a sequel, which was obliged to repeat the success of the original. However, for a variety of reasons, it happened that in the 90s, the “Mask 2” did not have to dream, and when the turn of the millennium came, many key figures responsible for the first part dropped out of the project, and this did not affect the scenario in the best way. He was not able to appreciate Jim Carrey, who refused to take any part in the formal show, and after him, Chuck Russell escaped from the sequel to The Mask. And yet, despite such heavy losses, the studio bosses decided to try their luck and released “Son of the Mask”, which is rightfully considered one of the worst sequels in the history of cinema.
The plot of the film takes place many years after Stanley Ipkiss last wore the very mask that turned him into an invincible merry man, able to put the whole city on his ears. Since then, it is not known for certain how the life of Stanley himself developed, but the mask was not exactly going to fall apart from old age, and it was eventually found by another modest man. Only this time, not a small bank clerk, but animator Tim Avery (Jamie Kennedy), who sometimes lacks courage and confidence, because of what his career and other life undertakings frankly stall on the spot. When the mask falls into the hands of Tim and he, of course, tries it on himself, magic happens and the hero in the image and likeness of Stanley Ipkiss turns into a restless buffoon who certainly will not miss the opportunity to have fun. And soon it turns out that Tim and his wife Tanya (Taylor Howard) give birth to a son Alvie (Ryan Falconer), endowed with incredible abilities given by his father’s relationship with the mask. Naturally, this state of affairs cannot but disturb Tim, because the child behaves towards him hostilely, and even the dog of the hero, Otis, constantly demands attention and draws a fair share of attention to himself, while Tanya has left for a while on business. Meanwhile, the father of the god of deceit Loki (Alan Cumming), the formidable Odin (Bob Hoskins), demands that his son return his mask on pain of deprivation of power. And Loki has no other options but to go down to Earth and go in search of an artifact that is very firmly entrenched in the Avery family, where its power was felt by literally everyone.
The rule of almost any sequel is that it should be many times more pompous, richer and more spectacular than the original. Unfortunately, in this case, careful script work and drama are sent to the background before a parade of tricks, special effects and all sorts of nonsense that seem to the creators something necessary and capable in two accounts to conquer the audience. However, the first “Mask” was too charming for its fans to forgive director Lawrence Guterman and screenwriter Lance Casey for their paltry work. The sequel does not feel the former charm of history at all, it is shot on a mechanical basis and there is simply no question of any creativity here. All the creators could come up with is a parade of completely unfunny, sometimes inadequate and sadistic jokes that a priori can not make anyone laugh. The story unfolds in a confused and sharp jumps, between which viewers have to observe a completely optional curve of the main characters. At the same time, none of them even tries to arouse genuine interest in the viewer and at least try to play something more than a parody of the original. It is not known for certain how the structure of the narrative would have changed if I returned to the role of Stanley Ipkiss Jim Carrey, but it is difficult to even imagine that something sensible could have happened from the “Son of the Mask”. Another problem with the film is that it can’t find an audience to like. It is too childish for an adult audience and not original enough for children who, in addition to bright pictures, have nothing to watch here. With such success, it is much more effective to show the kids animated series about the Mask, where each series lasts quite short and is much easier to sit out than a full-length film, painfully long approaching its climax.
The creators definitely hoped that the comedy actor Jamie Kennedy, known for the trilogy “The Scream”, would be able to somehow replace Jim Carrey, but judging by the available results, all expectations are completely in vain. Kennedy overplays his role, and although Kerry was different in the same way, he compensated for this with his exorbitant charm, while his creative heir can not boast of such. The main character does not cause sympathy at all. It is only necessary for the plot to be a faded replacement for the beloved Stanley Ipkiss, but such an artificial replacement is only disappointing and even annoying, so the choice of Kennedy for one of the most important roles in the film is definitely stupid. Slightly better things are with Alan Cumming, who played Loki, but he was simply not allowed to really open up for all sorts of grins and stupidities prescribed for him in the script.
In conclusion, I want to say that “Son of the Mask” is a completely unnecessary spectacle, from which it is simply impossible to enjoy. This is why it is better not to remember this film.
Of course you didn’t, it’s Taika Waititi now with him problems (a joke for those who are in the subject).
The sequel to "Masks" with Jim Carrey! He was nominated for eight Golden Raspberries, and only one was awarded. It's a shame I had to give it all away. Really deserved it. Well, except maybe Hoskins, who's hard to recognize in makeup. The film is flawed in all respects. Especially kills the aspirational plot and computer graphics. By the way, the graphics cut your eyes so much that the movie hunt to turn off in the first minutes. Overdose...
You look at the budget and you shrug. Oh, producers and sponsors! Did you really think this movie would pay off? You didn't have Jim Carrey, you didn't have Cameron Diaz. Tom Arnold has disappeared. Look at the caste, God. The main role was given to Jamie Kennedy. “Wanted in Malibu”, “Dance until you fall” and a huge pile of all sorts of nonsense.
Loki was cast (Hiddleston - ha ha, I'm on a roll today) by Alan Cumming. Not the worst actor (I really liked the movie X-Men 2, makeup did his thing), but he fools around the whole movie. It's not even a movie, it's an acid glitch. Such films only spoil the psyche, seriously. All characters are completely inadequate people (creatures).
Why didn’t this movie come out in 2005 when the original came out in 1994? Yeah, they delayed it. I should've taken it a few years later. Though I've been completely delusional. The film "Mask" was independent. He told a good story and closed it. It’s not like Friday the 13th, where you can barg sequels indefinitely.
You want to beat? The film was the last for the director Guterman (I do not count cartoons about wrestlers). You think so? No, the movie was the last for actress Trailor Howard. A movie that destroys lives and careers. It's kind of sad. The movie is really sad. Everyone is running, jumping, twitching, and the point is zero.
The main problem with this painting is that it has been dead since birth. This happens when producers decide to make money. They failed this time. And if you ask me personally, I remember the year when this movie was played in theaters. I’m glad I didn’t go to the movies.
P.S.
I almost forgot about the cartoon. There was an animated series where such a thing happened. Only cartoons and feature films are different things. There it was, and here it is in the dumpster...
I recently wrote that I love the movie The Mask with Jim Carrey. And a long time ago, I was watching TV and there was a movie called The Son of the Mask on one channel. I was happy because this is a sequel to my favorite movie. But watching it only hurt me. They not only mocked the original, they did not try at all.
"Son of the Mask" - a comedy of 2005, the sequel to the film "Mask". Plot... Tim Avery finds Loki's mask. The mask helps him turn his dreams into reality and achieve complete liberation. The first fitting helps him to have a child. Under the influence of the Mask, he conceived a son, and little Elvy inherited the supernatural qualities of an ancient artifact. Isn't that crazy? It's good that Jim Carrey refused to star in this movie. Maybe the actors are pulling this movie? Yeah, they're pulling... Pulling right to the bottom. It's been a long time since I've seen such terrible acting. Everybody's playing bad. I don’t even know what this movie will like. Unfunny and stupid jokes in the family picture. But there’s one thing that’s really done well. This movie can be scary. I'm serious.
1 out of 10
The film was originally positioned as a sequel to the legendary 1994 Mask. And waiting for the continuation of almost everything. And I heard somewhere that there was already a script ready for Jim Carrey and the other characters from the first movie to come back. But something went wrong. Jim dropped out of the project and the script had to be rewritten with other characters. But we were promised a good family comedy, so what happened? We got a tasteless comedy for once. But is it really that bad? Let's find out:
One day the dog of the protagonist finds a strange mask. And he takes this mask with him to a Halloween party (don't ask me why he took it - apparently spared the money for a normal suit). And as soon as he puts it on, the hell knows what. The first appearance of the Mask scared the shit out of me, showing the horror of his face with a wide-angle lens. I literally wanted to run out of the house screaming “Run!” They're here! After that, he goes home to his wife in the same guise and begins to engage with her... let’s call it “pillow fighting.” The wife is pregnant and they give birth to a little devil who inherited beyond the ability of the mask and the film finally turns into a madhouse. And I think I'm going to stop here because I don't want to explain how horrible it was to watch. I'll tell you, it was only when I watched that that I could restrain my vomit. Keep driving.
The cast: You know, the mere fact that Jim Carrey didn't star in this movie makes it clear that the movie is doomed to fail. But maybe the new heroes will not fail and play well? Who am I kidding? Of the cast of the first film, only Ben Stein remained. I have a question for the creators, “It was worth it.” The main character here is played by Jamie Kennedy, who, to be honest, has already annoyed with his whining for the entire film. Even when he speaks normally, he still whines and whines. And this actor played in "Scream" and "Scream 2". I am not going to mention the other actors, because none of them was filled with anything.
Operating work: You know, maybe I'm the only one who doesn't understand why I'm using a wide-angle lens to show an actor's whole face. I want to say, Boy, step back 2 steps. In the first film, at least they knew that the face of the mask was scary and they didn’t have to get close to the audience. Here in the first scene of the appearance of the mask makes you jump from the chairs. And they keep showing us his face.
Special effects and Grim: At the time of the film's release, it was 2005. And this is after the 3rd Lord of the Rings. And I expected great special effects that would surpass the first movie. But no! As a result, we got cheap, some cartoon special effects, because of which I wanted to gouge out my eyes. And about makeup, I’ll just say two words: plastic hair. Yes, yes! Plastic hair in 2005.
In conclusion, I wanted to say that I was very much looking forward to the release of this film, as I am a big fan of the first mask. And I even thought Jim Carrey wouldn't be in the movie. I watched the movie anyway, although my friends discouraged me and I didn’t listen to them (as it turned out to be in vain). This film not only disappointed me, it completely killed my idea of a good movie.
In general, “Son of the Mask” is a nightmare Hollywood fake, which dared to call a “family comedy”
1 out of 10
The comedy is disappointing from the start and keeps you in baffled contempt right down to the final credits. Of course, I was prepared for the fact that I would not see anything like “The Mask” & #39; with Jim Carrie, but I did not expect such outright nonsense.
The long, very boring scenes of this film are full of completely unnecessary and far-fetched special effects. You can see a great effort to make something really similar to the original film, but these efforts of the creators did not result in anything more.
The episode with the party, which comes for the first time put on the Mask meager main character and is completely reminiscent of its tediousness and uselessness of Indian films. Loki looks more like a round idiot than a god, and in general, you should not make a movie out of this plot. I think the cartoon would be much more enjoyable to watch. At least without a permanent desire to stop reproduction, forget about this work forever and once again revise the good old ' Mask'.
The scariest children's film, or Jamie Kennedy, is a sucker.
In 2006, my sister saw a licensed DVD of The Son of the Mask and bought it. I was afraid to watch it because Loki had a scary green face. But when I was 9, I watched this movie on my computer, and I was sick 639,673,855,802,449,143 times. There was so much delirium in the film, annoying, meaningless and especially scary (although the film is PG, but I would give it an NC-17 rating).
1. Why did they take Ben Stein (the only actor in the first movie) from a psychiatrist to play a museum tour guide? It’s like in Dumb and Dumber 2, there was a cop (who drank Lloyd’s piss), but only as a waiter, a fireman, and shorter than a policeman. Even Stein didn't play well in the original. He's kind of a jerk. To be honest, Stein reminds me very much of that elf from the animated series “Magic Parents”, because he also has a subfigist face. But I realized that Stein was voicing it.
2. The film is called “Son of the Mask”, although the mask itself was not given time at all.
3. There are very scary moments in the film. The child, instead of being funny, is scary. He even makes fun of his father. No real reason. When Tim thought his children were vampires. That moment really sucked me up. At one point, when a masked dog prepares a trap for a cracker, but then everything happened the opposite, the dog is pulled back at great speed, and instead of the dog’s eyes stretching, they simply fell out of his eyes, and where the eyes showed just empty holes.
4. Jamie Kennedy. His character always whines. His game is very slow. The funny thing is, when he plays the mask, he plays very differently. He played somehow. Maybe Guterman wanted Tim’s character to play very badly and the mask character to play very well.
5. The kind of mask. Jamie Kennedy, along with the makeup of a mask, is really unrecognizable. His face looks very scary. Man, even instead of a wig, his hair was plastic. The film's budget is $84 million, and they didn't have enough money for a wig. A wig costs only $2.
6. The green sperm scene. This scene is not only scary, but also very sleek. Three green sperm make the race to get to the fetus faster, and one sperm (whose name is unknown) wins. Fortunately, this scene lasted a few seconds.
7. Comparison with the original. In this movie, the special effects are terrible. They were better in the original. They look good now, too. In this film, all the actors played terrible. In the original, it's the opposite. Even Milo and Otis are of the same breed. Children may think that Otis is Milo.
That’s all I can say about “Son of the Mask.” If you don’t understand anything, just watch the movie.
2 out of 10
The fact that the continuation of any successful film is made solely for the sake of money is a well-known fact. However, in order for the sequel to pay off, you usually need to go the old “grandfather” way: what you like is to double, and what you don’t – improve or completely remove. Therefore, the complete failure of the “Son of the Mask” in the world box office is quite understandable.
What would you expect from this movie if you knew it was a sequel to Jim Carrey’s masterpiece The Mask? I'm sure the waiting bar will be high. But in this case, the greed of Hollywood producers is surprising. When Carrey turned down the offer to star in the sequel, the director of the original Chuck Russell followed him. He, in turn, gave way to director Lawrence Guterman, who had previously managed to appear in the family comedy Cats vs. Dogs. Guterman took the lead role of little-known comedian Jamie Kennedy, who is no stranger to acting in bad films. As a result, the script was rewritten, and the director took up the production. These are the main reasons for the failure of this film.
Here, Guterman uses the same directorial style as in Cats Against Dogs. That is, as much computer nonsense as possible and a minimum of acting. In such a situation, you can expect good graphics from the former, especially with a budget of $ 84 million. What the giant (for family comedy) money went for remains a mystery. Strictly speaking, the special effects here are simply terrible and could have been concocted on a computer on a much smaller budget. What is worth only one disgusting baby!
Actors, to put it mildly, are not a gift either. The woeful artist Kennedy, compared to Jim Carrey, is just awful. He seems to only walk around with a dull expression on his face and occasionally crooked into the camera, portraying a man with Down syndrome. When he is in the image of the Mask, he simply says lines, trying to keep a smile. The lack of a normal script completes the dull picture: The mask falls into the hands of Tim Avery, who has a son, for unknown reasons, who has supernatural abilities. Then the God of Locke, the owner of the mask, appears and begins to look for it. It seems to me that even a five-year-old child in five minutes on his knee could come up with something more original.
Along with all this, not funny jokes and total boredom kill any desire to keep watching. I sincerely recommend: do not waste time on this nonsense of an acid addict, but rather go dig in the nose. That would be a lot more useful.
A story about how my tastes have changed. Chapter one
Once upon a time, in 2006-2007, I saw this film, and it seemed chaotic, disordered, but quite bearable to watch it a couple more times. But seeing the first part with the inimitable Jim Carrey, I was in a slight bewilderment - what did the sequel to such an incomparable film turn into?
The story revolves around Loki’s Mask and who will wear it. That’s what the loser animator Tim puts on, who impresses his new image on his boss, plus his wife becomes pregnant. The child has supernatural abilities and bullies his father. But the Mask at this time is looking for its creator – the god of cunning Loki.
When you watch a movie where a child is kidding, jokes with parents, you think that the child has serious problems associated with some psychological trauma. But to see a child who has not yet learned to walk mocks his father. It's no longer funny or sympathetic, it's wild and unreal, at least in the film. All these special effects look ridiculous and completely out of place. Just like the dog's makeup - I certainly welcome it being kept as a homage to the previous film, but it has also been made dead and stupid. And the makeup of the man in the Mask is not as sparkling as the irrepressible Kerry!
About actors - they all play like not their own plate. You could have played 10 times better! The only one who played and played pretty well was Alan Cumming. For Loki’s sake, it made sense to watch this movie! Here he even somewhat embodied the image of the god of deceit, deceit and trickery.
Another plus of this picture is the song of the legendary Sinatra "I love you baby". She is probably one fat plus in the film, but which is unlikely to cover a huge number of minuses. And the song and the scene of her performance - that's it to watch as many times as you want, which I do when I'm in a bad mood.
For this song and a very good performance by Cumming
4 out of 10
I don’t understand whether the filmmakers didn’t realize that a baby talking with the help of computer graphics looks not funny, but creepy. I was disgusted throughout the film.
Director Lawrence Guterman continues to walk the path trodden by his previous film Cats vs. Dogs. His recipe: more computer rubbish, a minimum of plot twists and an acting group composed of faces that are familiar on television, actors "class - B" and a respected star, in the person of Bob Hoskins, who apparently argued the argument, thereby getting into this film ... All this is mixed into such a stream of nonsense that the eyes begin to hurt, whether from a crazy firework of colors, or from boredom and poverty, which is happening on the screen. The acting is simply striking with its insincerity and playfulness. Within a few minutes, she was very annoying. A disgusting computer baby drives the last nail into the coffin of this picture. It seems that the script was written by a preschooler, so banal and stupid. The plot just tears the brain with its insignificance and predictability. And the director’s work deserves that Lawrence Guterman is officially banned from making films, because they destroy the brain and unnerve people.
Overall, one of the worst movies I've seen in my life. And there are many, believe me. All the components of a good film at the lowest level – the script, the direction, the acting – are simply striking in their scarcity and idiocy. I propose to destroy all copies of this film and once again enjoy the "Mask" with the unique "Jim Carrey". "Son of the Mask" - a movie worthy of only one ...
1 out of 10
Chuck Russell's film "The Mask" in the distant 1994 made a real furor. It had everything - and funny humor, and animated inserts, and Jim Carrie with great charisma and rich facial expressions. But this negative review I dedicate to the film “Son of the Mask”, directed by Lawrence Gutterman 11 years later. I saw this comedy before the original and I didn’t like it. Just another typical American product, with a lot of stamps, but with a complete lack of humor.
The plot is very different from the original and much weaker. I think everyone remembers the sparkling story of the humble Stanley Ipkis and the mask that turns him into a hilarious superhero. But he's unlikely to be in the sequel. But there is Tim Avery, a classic loser who finds almost the same mask, and soon he has a son with paranormal abilities. Suddenly, a villain, Loki (who doesn’t know, is a Scandinavian fire god), wants to get his mask back and find the baby born of it. Total nonsense. Stupid parody of the Jim Carrie movie. He did the right thing by refusing to wear that slag. The film is boring and bland, despite a little timekeeping. In some places I wanted to sleep at all, even if I looked well without lying down, otherwise I would have already seen dreams by the end. You know why? Because the film is not only protracted, but also replete with cliches and eternal family values, sweet to the spooky. This theme in modern comedies is already tired somehow, boring and beaten.
Humor and special effects: There are no good jokes at all, some are written off from the original. The situations in which the main character falls are flat and not funny, in some places only the dog smiled (well, like Milo from the first part!). Special effects and cartoon inserts are not bad, and this is the only plus.
Jim Carrey’s place in this bedlam was taken by a certain Jamie Kennedy, a completely unknown “actor” to me. He played weakly, badly underplayed, sometimes tried to seem funny, but he did not succeed. There was still some hope for Alan Cumming, villains are usually much more interesting. But Alan overplayed and looked more stupid than charismatic. The actress, who played the wife of the Glavhero, did not like, looked dull and plain.
Outcome: Rarely does a sequel surpass the original. And it didn't work out here.
